The porous polyethylene/bioglass spherical orbital implant: a retrospective study of 170 cases
- PMID: 20700071
- DOI: 10.1097/IOP.0b013e3181de01a7
The porous polyethylene/bioglass spherical orbital implant: a retrospective study of 170 cases
Abstract
Purpose: To report patient outcomes after placement of porous polyethylene (PPE)/bioglass (BG) orbital implants for primary enucleation or secondary implantation.
Design: Retrospective chart review in one surgeon's practice (J.D.N.).
Methods: A chart review of all patients who underwent placement of PPE/BG orbital implants was performed. Data included patient's age, gender, surgical indication, prior ocular surgery, medical history, procedure performed, implant size, and postoperative complications.
Results: PPE/BG implants were placed in 170 sockets. Seventy-seven patients were women, and 85 were men. One hundred forty patients underwent primary enucleation and placement of an implant, and 22 patients underwent secondary implantation. One hundred sixty-one patients did well after orbital implantation with a comfortable socket, quiet conjunctiva, and motility. Complications occurred in 9 patients (5.3%). Excessive discharge alone occurred in 2 patients (1.2%). Seven sockets undergoing primary enucleation and implant placement had implant exposure. One patient had an early exposure, and 6 had late exposures. All exposures were successfully treated with antibiotics or additional surgery. Secondary surgeries were required by some patients, but not due to implant complications, included ectropion repair in 5 patients (2.9%) and volume augmentation in 3 patients (1.7%).
Conclusions: The PPE/BG orbital implant may be a useful implant for orbital reconstruction after primary enucleation or as a secondary implant.
Similar articles
-
Complications of primary placement of motility post in porous polyethylene implants during enucleation.Am J Ophthalmol. 2007 May;143(5):828-834. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2007.01.049. Epub 2007 Mar 23. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007. PMID: 17362860
-
Late exposure of the bioceramic orbital implant.Am J Ophthalmol. 2009 Jan;147(1):162-170.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2008.05.001. Epub 2008 Jun 24. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009. PMID: 18571617
-
The use of autologous dermis grafts for the reconstruction of the anophthalmic socket.Orbit. 2010 Aug;29(4):183-9. doi: 10.3109/01676831003695347. Orbit. 2010. PMID: 20812833
-
Porous polyethylene orbital implant in the pediatric population.Am J Ophthalmol. 2004 Sep;138(3):425-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2004.04.062. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004. PMID: 15364225 Review.
-
Intraorbital implants after enucleation and their complications: a 10-year review.Arch Ophthalmol. 1998 Sep;116(9):1199-203. doi: 10.1001/archopht.116.9.1199. Arch Ophthalmol. 1998. PMID: 9747679 Review.
Cited by
-
Ocular implants-methods of ocular reconstruction following radical surgical interventions.Rom J Ophthalmol. 2018 Jan-Mar;62(1):15-23. Rom J Ophthalmol. 2018. PMID: 29796430 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Clinical and histopathological study of a hollow and posteriorly multiperforated polymethylmethacrylate implant in eviscerated rabbit eyes.Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2023 Oct 13;86(5):e20230064. doi: 10.5935/0004-2749.20230064. eCollection 2023. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2023. PMID: 35544934 Free PMC article.
-
Bioactive Glasses: Where Are We and Where Are We Going?J Funct Biomater. 2018 Mar 19;9(1):25. doi: 10.3390/jfb9010025. J Funct Biomater. 2018. PMID: 29562680 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Clinical outcomes and complications of a new high-density polyethylene-based spherical integrated porous orbital implant.Int Ophthalmol. 2024 Sep 6;44(1):371. doi: 10.1007/s10792-024-03282-8. Int Ophthalmol. 2024. PMID: 39240285
-
The Evolution of Orbital Implants and Current Breakthroughs in Material Design, Selection, Characterization, and Clinical Use.Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022 Feb 17;9:800998. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.800998. eCollection 2021. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022. PMID: 35252161 Free PMC article. Review.
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical