Complications of porous spherical orbital implants.

PURPOSE To determine the complications observed with using porous spherical orbital implants (hydroxyapatite and porous polyethylene) and the factors leading to their occurrence. METHODS A total of 101 cases of porous spherical orbital implantation by five ophthalmic surgeons were reviewed retrospectively. The demographic data, diagnosis, prior surgery, type and technique of surgery, implant characteristics and prosthesis fitting were described in patients with complications. RESULTS Eleven of the 101 patients had implant exposure. There were six male (1 with bilateral involvement) and four female patients, ranging in age from 2 to 71 years. Preoperative diagnosis included trauma in five patients, nontrauma in five, and tumor in one. Seven had prior eye surgeries. Three patients underwent evisceration, whereas eight underwent enucleation. Eight hydroxyapatite and three porous polyethylene implants were used with diameters of 16 to 20 mm. Three were unwrapped, six were wrapped in sclera, and two were wrapped in preserved fascia. Exposures, which generally occurred within 1 year, were grouped into small (1-5 mm), medium (6-10 mm), and large (> 10 mm). One delayed case occurred after drilling. Small stable exposures were managed conservatively. Larger exposures were managed either by implant revision or replacement. All patients were fit ultimately with a prosthesis. Histopathologic findings of explanted spheres showed fibrovascularization limited to the periphery with moderate inflammatory reaction. CONCLUSION Complications were significantly higher in cases of eviscerations than enucleations. Complications occurred in implants either unwrapped or wrapped in homologous grafts. None of the autologous wrapping had exposure. Secondary procedures may initiate exposure when fibrovascular status of implant is inadequate.

[1]  J. Bilyk,et al.  Comparison of Fibrovascular Ingrowth into Hydroxyapatite and Porous Polyethylene Orbital Implants , 1994, Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[2]  D. R. Jordan The popping peg phenomenon. , 1994, Archives of ophthalmology.

[3]  P. Rubin,et al.  Enucleation, evisceration, and exenteration. , 1993, Current opinion in ophthalmology.

[4]  J. Bonnin,et al.  Effects of Radiation on the Use of Hydroxyapatite for Orbital Reconstruction in the Rabbit , 1993, Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[5]  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.

[6]  Ashutosh Kumar Singh,et al.  Lack of complications of the hydroxyapatite orbital implant in 250 consecutive cases. , 1993, Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society.

[7]  B. B. Becker,et al.  Extrusion of enucleation implants: treatment with secondary implants and autogenous temporalis fascia or fascia lata patch grafts. , 1992, Ophthalmic surgery.

[8]  H. Buettner,et al.  Tissue breakdown and exposure associated with orbital hydroxyapatite implants. , 1992, American journal of ophthalmology.

[9]  C. Shields,et al.  Role of magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of the hydroxyapatite orbital implant. , 1992, Ophthalmology.

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

[11]  J. Dutton,et al.  Rate of vascularization of coralline hydroxyapatite ocular implants. , 1992, Ophthalmology.

[12]  C. Shields,et al.  Hydroxyapatite orbital implant after enucleation. Experience with initial 100 consecutive cases. , 1992, Archives of ophthalmology.

[13]  P. Rubin,et al.  Correction of Enophthalmos with Porous Polyethylene Implants , 1992, International ophthalmology clinics.

[14]  C. Shields,et al.  Histopathologic evidence of fibrovascular ingrowth four weeks after placement of the hydroxyapatite orbital implant. , 1991, American journal of ophthalmology.

[15]  J. Dutton Coralline hydroxyapatite as an ocular implant. , 1991, Ophthalmology.

[16]  A. Perry Integrated orbital implants. , 1990, Advances in ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[17]  Mules Ph Evisceration of the globe with artificial vitreous. 1884-1895. , 1990 .

[18]  D. Soll Evolution and current concepts in the surgical treatment of the anophthalmic orbit. , 1986, Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[19]  A. Berghaus Porous polyethylene in reconstructive head and neck surgery. , 1985, Archives of otolaryngology.

[20]  W. Walter Update on Enucleation and Evisceration Surgery* , 1985, Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[21]  Levine Mr Extruding orbital implant: prevention and treatment. , 1980 .

[22]  G. Shannon,et al.  Experience with donor sclera for extruding orbital implants. , 1977, Ophthalmic surgery.

[23]  D. Soll Donor sclera in enucleation surgery. , 1974, Archives of ophthalmology.

[24]  H. P. Gougelmann The Evolution of the Ocular Motility Implant , 1970 .

[25]  E. Helveston Human bank scleral patch; for repair of exposed or extruded orbital implants. , 1969, Archives of ophthalmology.