Purpose: To evaluate the long-term outcomes of pegged and unpegged bioceramic orbital implants.
Methods: A retrospective analysis of 101 cases of evisceration, enucleation, or secondary implant surgery with placement of a bioceramic porous implant was conducted. Type of surgery, existence of a peg, peg system used, time of pegging, problems encountered before and after pegging, treatment methods, and final status were recorded.
Results: Evisceration was performed on 74, enucleation on 16, and secondary implant surgery on 11 patients. The patients were observed for a mean of 68.4 months (3 months-12 years). Fifty-three of the 101 patients were pegged. Patients were pegged at a mean of 9.3 months (6-23 months). Hydroxyapatite-coated, titanium-sleeved, titanium pegs were used in 43 patients, and titanium peg and sleeve system was used in 10 patients. Major complications were exposure and infection. Three patients presented with early exposure and late exposure developed in 14 of pegged and 4 of unpegged patients. The difference in late-exposure rates between pegged and unpegged group was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Implant infection developed in 9 of the pegged and in 1 of the unpegged patients. Implant exposure was noted in 6 of these 10 patients with infection. The difference in infection rates between the pegged and unpegged patients was statistically significant (p < 0.05). In 2 of the pegged patients, removal of bioceramic implant was required and after resolution of infection, another type of porous implant was implanted and repegged. The peg system was removed in 6 patients for the management of either exposure, infection, extrusion, hypermobility of sleeve, or peg falling out. Four patients were repegged. The time period between peg insertion and development of complications ranged from 15 days to 10 years. 86.8% of pegged patients were free of major complications and satisfied with the result at the last follow-up visit.
Conclusion: Despite potential complications that can occur as late as 10 years, bioceramic porous implants yield satisfactory long-term results. Existence of a peg system appears to play a role in the increased rate of late-onset complications. Further investigations on new and safer pegging systems should be conducted.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/IOP.0b013e3182541315 | DOI Listing |
Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg
October 2012
Istanbul Okuloplasti, Oculoplastic Surgery and Ocular Oncology Center, Istanbul, Turkey.
Purpose: To evaluate the long-term outcomes of pegged and unpegged bioceramic orbital implants.
Methods: A retrospective analysis of 101 cases of evisceration, enucleation, or secondary implant surgery with placement of a bioceramic porous implant was conducted. Type of surgery, existence of a peg, peg system used, time of pegging, problems encountered before and after pegging, treatment methods, and final status were recorded.
Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg
November 2011
Department of Ophthalmology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Purpose: To describe a simple, cost-sensitive enucleation technique and to evaluate it in the context of intended benefits and long-term outcomes of alternate methods.
Methods: A retrospective record review of patients who underwent enucleation using the described technique at a single institution by 2 surgeons. Surgery involved direct fixation of extraocular muscles to a solid silicone sphere, using nonabsorbable braided sutures with knots tied beneath the muscle insertions.
Expert Rev Med Devices
November 2006
Department Biomaterials and Polymer Research, Lions Eye Institute, and Research Ophthalmologist, Centre for Ophthalmology and Visual Science, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Australia.
This article reviews orbital implants used to replace an eye after enucleation or evisceration. Advantages of implant placement are described, with discussion of implant and wrap material, and design features that affect clinical outcomes. Implants may be porous or nonporous, pegged for linkage with a cosmetic shell or unpegged, and may be wrapped with a covering material or tissue or unwrapped.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFOphthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg
January 2007
Department of Ophthalmology and Sişli Etfal Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Purpose: To analyze implant infection in patients with porous orbital implants.
Methods: A retrospective analysis of 212 patients with one of five types of porous orbital implants (bone-derived hydroxyapatite [HA], coralline HA, synthetic HA, porous polyethylene, and aluminium oxide) was conducted. Reasons for surgery, type of surgery, type of implant, peg system used, time of pegging, problems before and after pegging, treatment, and follow-up duration were recorded for all patients, along with additional data including time of onset of infection, microorganism cultured, antibiotics used, patient response to antibiotic therapy, additional interventions, and final status for patients with infection.
Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg
July 2004
Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, 6565 Fannin, NC-536, Houston, TX 77030, U.S.A.
Purpose: To evaluate current trends in the management of the anophthalmic socket after primary enucleation and evisceration.
Methods: The active membership of the American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (ASOPRS) was surveyed regarding primary enucleations and eviscerations performed between January and December 2002. Survey questions included practice demographics, orbital implant use, wrapping materials, placement of a motility peg, reasons for implant choice, and complications encountered.
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!