Current Trends in Managing the Anophthalmic Socket After Primary Enucleation and Evisceration

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. Results: A total of 2,779 primary orbital implants were reported, comprising 1,919 (69.1%) enucleations and 860 (30.9%) eviscerations. The high-density porous polyethylene implant was used most frequently for enucleations (42.7%), followed by coralline hydroxyapatite (27.3%) and nonporous alloplastic implants (19.9%). For eviscerations, the high-density porous polyethylene implant was the most commonly used implant (42.3%), followed by hydroxyapatite (25.9%) and nonporous alloplastic implants (25.7%). The top 3 reasons for implant choice were outcome (69.3%), cost (43.6%), and experience (39.5%). Most implants were either not wrapped (59.8%) or were wrapped in donor sclera (25.2%) or polyglactin mesh (7.2%). Pegs were used in 8.1% of all implants reported. The most frequent complications encountered for unpegged implants were exposure (3.2%) and infection (0.4%). For pegged implants, the most common complications reported were pyogenic granuloma (13.7%), exposure (5.7%), and discharge (5.7%). Conclusions: In managing the anophthalmic socket, ASOPRS survey respondents preferred to use the porous polyethylene implant after primary enucleation and evisceration. Most orbital implants were not wrapped, and most surgeons preferred not to place a motility post or peg in the implant.

[1]  E. Purdy.  Oculoplastic and orbital applications of porous high-density polyethylene implants. , 1997, Current opinion in ophthalmology.

[2]  R. Goldberg.  Who should have hydroxyapatite orbital implants? , 1995, Archives of ophthalmology.

[3]  B. Haik,et al.  Wrapping hydroxyapatite orbital implants with posterior auricular muscle complex grafts. , 1999, American journal of ophthalmology.

[4]  P. Rubin,et al.  Enhancement of the cosmetic and functional outcome of enucleation with the conical orbital implant. , 1998, Ophthalmology.

[5]  J. Karesh.  Biomaterials in ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery. , 1998, Current Opinion in Ophthalmology.

[6]  J. Nerad,et al.  A preliminary report on the Universal Implant. , 1987, Archives of ophthalmology.

[7]  W. Nunery,et al.  Extrusion Rate of Silicone Spherical Anophthalmic Socket Implants , 1993, Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[8]  L. Mawn,et al.  The Bioceramic Orbital Implant: A New Generation of Porous Implants , 2000, Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[9]  B. Neundörfer,et al.  Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease via dural and corneal transplants , 1998, Journal of the Neurological Sciences.

[10]  C. Beard.  Remarks on Historical and Newer Approaches to Orbital Implants , 1995, Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[11]  J. Patrinely,et al.  Periocular autografts in socket reconstruction. , 1996, Ophthalmology.

[12]  H. Lemij,et al.  Comparison of artificial eye amplitudes with acrylic and hydroxyapatite spherical enucleation implants. , 2000, Ophthalmology.

[13]  J. Bonnin,et al.  Exposure Rate of Hydroxyapatite Spheres in the Anophthalmic Socket: Histopathologic Correlation and Comparison with Silicone Sphere Implants , 1993, Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[14]  S. Kaltreider,et al.  Orbital implants in enucleation surgery: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. , 2003, Ophthalmology.

[15]  Stephen R. Klapper,et al.  Hydroxyapatite Implant Wrapping Materials: Analysis of Fibrovascular Ingrowth in an Animal Model , 2000, Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[16]  D. Holck,et al.  Bovine Pericardium as a Wrapping for Orbital Implants , 2001, Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[17]  M. Chen,et al.  Complications of motility peg placement for porous hydroxyapatite orbital implants , 2002, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[18]  R. Goldberg,et al.  Exposed hydroxyapatite orbital implants. Report of six cases. , 1992, Ophthalmology.

[19]  F. Codère.  Hydroxyapatite implants: a rational approach. , 1995, Canadian journal of ophthalmology. Journal canadien d'ophtalmologie.

[20]  S. Grahovac,et al.  A new variety of hydroxyapatite: the Chinese implant. , 1999, Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[21]  P. Rubin,et al.  Ophthalmic plastic applications of acellular dermal allografts. , 1999, Ophthalmology.

[22]  S. C. Kao,et al.  The use of rectus abdominis sheath for wrapping of the hydroxyapatite orbital implants. , 1999, Ophthalmic surgery and lasers.

[23]  G. Massry,et al.  Frontal periosteum as an exposed orbital implant cover. , 1999, Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[24]  R. Goldberg,et al.  Bovine Hydroxyapatite Orbital Implant: A Preliminary Report , 2002, Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[25]  L. Mawn,et al.  Complications associated with pegging hydroxyapatite orbital implants. , 1999, Ophthalmology.

[26]  T. Murray,et al.  Design of a magnetically integrated microporous implant. , 2000, Archives of ophthalmology.

[27]  S. Gilberg,et al.  The Use of Vicryl Mesh in 200 Porous Orbital Implants: A Technique With Few Exposures , 2003, Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[28]  Richard L. Anderson,et al.  The Quasi-Integrated Porous Polyethylene Orbital Implant , 2002, Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[29]  C. E. Iliff.  Orbital implants. , 1970, Transactions - American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology. American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology.

[30]  J. Dutton,et al.  A Comparison of Rates of Fibrovascular Ingrowth in Wrapped Versus Unwrapped Hydroxyapatite Spheres in a Rabbit Model , 2002, Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[31]  P. Custer.  Enucleation: Past, Present, and Future , 2000, Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[32]  L. Allen,et al.  A buried muscle cone implant. Development of a tunneled hemispherical type. , 1950, Archives of ophthalmology.

[33]  L. Allen,et al.  The Iowa enucleation implant. A 10-year evaluation of technique and results. , 1969, American journal of ophthalmology.

[34]  C. Padovani,et al.  Gelatinous polyethylene in the treatment of the anophthalmic cavity , 2002, Orbit.

[35]  G. Bernatzky,et al.  Glass-ionomer cement: evaluation as an orbital implant , 1999, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[36]  K. Dolphin.  Complications of postenucleation/evisceration implants. , 1998, Current opinion in ophthalmology.

[37]  L. Mawn,et al.  The Synthetic Hydroxyapatite Implant: A Report on 65 Patients , 1998, Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[38]  L. Kao.  Polytetrafluoroethylene as a Wrapping Material for a Hydroxyapatite Orbital Implant , 2000, Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[39]  S. Seiff,et al.  Polymerase chain reaction identification of human immunodeficiency virus-1 in preserved human sclera. , 1994, American journal of ophthalmology.

[40]  B. Biesman,et al.  Current Techniques of Enucleation: A Survey of 5,439 Intraorbital Implants and a Review of the Literature , 1995, Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[41]  P. H. Mules.  Evisceration of the globe with artificial vitreous. 1884-1895. , 1990, Advances in ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[42]  S. Dresner,et al.  High-density porous polyethylene (Medpor) as a successful anophthalmic socket implant. , 1994, Ophthalmology.

[43]  S. Grahovac,et al.  The Use of Vicryl Mesh (Polyglactin 910) for Implantation of Hydroxyapatite Orbital Implants , 1995, Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[44]  K. Trinkaus,et al.  Comparative motility of hydroxyapatite and alloplastic enucleation implants. , 1999, Ophthalmology.

[45]  P. Herbison,et al.  Long term follow up of bone derived hydroxyapatite orbital implants , 2002, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[46]  H. Lew,et al.  Complications in motility PEG placement for hydroxyapatite orbital implant in anophthalmic socket. , 2002, Japanese journal of ophthalmology.

[47]  A. Morabia.  Survey Methods in Community Medicine: Epidemiological Research, Programme Evaluation, Clinical Trials. Fifth Edition - By J. H. Abramson and Z. H. Abramson , 2000 .

[48]  J. Patrinely,et al.  Porous Polyethylene Implant Fibrovascularization Rate Is Affected by Tissue Wrapping, Agarose Coating, and Insertion Site , 2000, Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[49]  D. R. Jordan,et al.  ANOPHTHALMIC ORBITAL IMPLANTS , 2000 .

[50]  L. Mawn,et al.  The Molteno M-Sphere , 2000, Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[51]  W. Bearden,et al.  Enucleation: Is Wrapping the Implant Necessary for Optimal Motility? , 2003, Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[52]  J. Oestreicher,et al.  Complications of hydroxyapatite orbital implants. A review of 100 consecutive cases and a comparison of Dexon mesh (polyglycolic acid) with scleral wrapping. , 1997, Ophthalmology.

[53]  D. Kikkawa,et al.  Prosthetic Motility in Pegged Versus Unpegged Integrated Porous Orbital Implants , 2003, Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[54]  C. Shields,et al.  Complications of motility peg placement for the hydroxyapatite orbital implant. , 1997, Ophthalmology.