Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Methods to Improve Prosthesis Motility in Enucleation Surgery Without Pegging and With Emphasis on Muscle Pedunculated Flaps

  • Chapter
Oculoplastics and Orbit

Part of the book series: Essentials in Ophthalmology ((ESSENTIALS))

Abstract

  • Implant wrapping is not necessary to obtain optimal prosthesis motility

  • Full thickness or lamellar muscle pedunculated scleral flaps are suitable to cover the anterior implant surface

  • The less soft tissue material is needed to cover the anterior implant surface, the better motility transmission to the artificial eye works

  • The deeper the inferior and superior fornix is configured, the better prosthesis motility can be achieved

  • Composite implants with solid silicone for the posterior and porous hydroxyapatite for the anterior part may improve prosthesis motility and maintain it as a permanent joint-like structure in Tenon’s capsule

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Callahan A (1987) Introduction. In: Vistnes LM (ed) Surgical reconstruction in the anophthalmic orbit. Aesculapius Publishing Co., Birmingham, AL

    Google Scholar 

  2. Mules PH (1885) Evisceration of the globe with artificial vitreous. Trans Ophthalmol Soc U K 5:200–206

    Google Scholar 

  3. Frost WA (1887) Cited in Lane W: “On the insertion of artificial globes into Tenon’s capsule after excising the eye”. Trans Ophthalmol Soc U K 7:286

    Google Scholar 

  4. Schmidt H (1906) Zur Lösung des Problems der Kugeleinheilung. Z Augenheilk 16:63–80

    Google Scholar 

  5. Schmidt H (1910) Zur Lösung des Problems der Kugeleinheilung. Nachtrag 1909. Z Augenheilk 23:321–339

    Google Scholar 

  6. Klement R, Trämel G (1932) Hydroxylapatit, der Hauptbestandteil der anorganischen Knochenund Zahnsubstanz. Hoppe-Seyler’s Z Physiol Chemie 230:263–269

    Google Scholar 

  7. McLean FC, Urist MR (eds) (1968) Bone fundamentals of the physiology of skeletal tissue, 3rd edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  8. Schmidt H (1930) Zur kritischen Würdigung der plastischen Stumpfbildungsmethoden. Verlag von S. Karger, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  9. Aust W, Guist G (1926) Zur Stumpfverbesserung nach Enukleation. Denk W, Schriftleiter. Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift. Organ der Gesellschaft der Ärzte in Wien, p 934

    Google Scholar 

  10. Allen JH, Allen L (1950) A buried muscle cone implant. Arch Ophthalmol 43:879–890

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Suter AJ, et al. (2002) Long term follow up of bone derived hydroxyapatite orbital implants. Br J Ophthalmol 86:1287–1292

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ruedemann AD (1946) Plastic eye implant. Am J Ophthalmol 29:947–952

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cutler NL (1947) A positive contact ball and ring implant for use after enucleation. Arch Ophthalmol 37:73–81

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Arruga H (1954) Improved orbital implant. Am J Ophthalmol 38:93–95

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Durham DG (1949) The new ocular implants. Am J Ophthalmol 32:79–89

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gougelmann HP (1970) The evolution of the ocular motility implant. Int Ophthalmol Clin 10:689–711

    Google Scholar 

  17. Guyton JS (1949) Symposium: orbital implants after enucleation. Procedures and physiologic factors. Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol 32:1725–1734

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hughes WL (1952) Symposium: orbital implants after enucleation. Classification and mechanics involved. Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol 56:25–27

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Smit TJ, et al. (1991) Management of acquired anophthalmos: an historical review. In: The post enucleation socket syndrome. Academisch Proefschrift, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  20. Perry AC (1990) Integrated orbital implants. In: Bosniak SL (ed) Advances in ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery 8: the anophthalmic socket. Pergamon Press, New York, pp 75–81

    Google Scholar 

  21. Roper-Hall MJ (1954) Orbital implants. Trans Ophthalmol Soc U K 74:337–346

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cytryn AS, Perman KI (1999) Evisceration. In: Migliori ME (ed) Enucleation, evisceration and exenteration of the eye. Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, pp 105–112

    Google Scholar 

  23. Migliori ME (2002) Enucleation versus evisceration. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 13:298–302

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Guthoff RF, Schittkowski MP, Klett A (2003) Muscle pedunculated lamellar scleral flaps for implant coverage — a microsurgical modification to improve prosthesis motility. In: ASOPRS Scientific Fall Symposium, 2003. ASOPRS Executive Committee, Anaheim, CA

    Google Scholar 

  25. Klett A, Guthoff RF (2003) Deckung von Orbitaimplantaten mit muskelgestielter autologer Sklera. Eine mikrochirurgische Modifikation zur Verbesserung der Prothesenmotilität. Ophthalmologe 100:449–452

    PubMed  CAS  ISI  Google Scholar 

  26. Schittkowski MP, Klett A, Guthoff RF (2003) A microsurgical modification of implant coverage after enucleation — first experiences with muscle pedunculated lamellar scleral flaps. In: 21st Meeting of the European Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 12–13 Sept. 2003. ESOPRS, Gothenburg

    Google Scholar 

  27. Dresner SC, Karesh JW (2000) Primary implant placement with evisceration in patients with endophthalmitis. Ophthalmology 107:1664–1665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Shore JW, Dieckert JW, Levine MR (1988) Delayed primary wound closure: use to prevent implant extrusion following evisceration for endophthalmitis. Arch Ophthalmol 106:1303–1308

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Walter WL (1985) Update on enucleation and evisceration surgery. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 1:243–252

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Custer PL, Reistad CE (2000) Enucleation of blind, painful eyes. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 16:326–329

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Shah-Desai SD, Tyers AG, Manners RM (2000) Painful blind eye: efficacy of enucleation and evisceration in resolving ocular pain. Br J Ophthalmol 84:437–438

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Levine MR, Pou CR, Lash RH (1999) The 1998 Wendell Hughes Lecture. Evisceration: is sympathetic ophthalmia a concern in the new millenium? Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 15:4–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Guthoff RF, Vick HP, Schaudig U (1995) Zur Prophylaxe des Postenukleationssyndroms: Das Hydroxylapatitsilikonimplantat. Ophthalmologe 92:198–205

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Klett A, Guthoff RF (2003) Wie läβt sich die Prothesenmotilität verbessern? Der Einfluss von Fornixtiefe und Gewebedicke vor einem Hydroxylapatitsilikon-Implantat bei 66 Patienten. Ophthalmologe 100:445–448

    PubMed  CAS  ISI  Google Scholar 

  35. Allen L (1983) The argument against imbricating the rectus muscles over spherical orbital implants after enucleation. Ophthalmology 90:1116–1120

    PubMed  CAS  ISI  Google Scholar 

  36. Beard C (1995) Remarks on historical and newer approaches to orbital implants. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 11:89–90

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Perry AC (1997) Hydroxyapatite: the vascularizing integrated orbital implant. In: Stepherson CM (ed) Ophthalmic plastic, reconstructive, and orbital surgery. Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, pp 463–479

    Google Scholar 

  38. Shields CL, Shields JA, De Potter P (1992) Hydroxyapatite orbital implant after enucleation: experience with initial 100 consecutive cases. Arch Ophthalmol 110:333–338

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Guthoff RF, Donath K, Osborn JF (1986) Solid hydroxyapatite ceramics as implant material after enucleation. In: XXVth International Congress of Ophthalmology, Amsterdam, 1987. XXV Concilium Ophthalmologicum. Kugler and Ghedini, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  40. Jordan DR, Bawazeer A (2001) Experience with 120 synthetic hydroxyapatite implants (FCI3). Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 17:221–223

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Ducasse A, et al. (2001) Tolerance of orbital implants. Retrospective study on 14 years. J Fr Ophthalmol 24:277–281

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Adenis JP, Dourlhes N (1998) Implants en ceramique. In: Adenis JP, Morax S (eds) Pathologie orbito-palpebrale. Societe Française d’Ophtalmologie. Masson, Paris, pp 675–678

    Google Scholar 

  43. Rulfi JY, Adenis JP (2001) Past and present trends in intraorbital biointegrated macroporous material implants. Operative Tech Oculoplast Orbital Reconstr Surg 4:30–35

    Google Scholar 

  44. Osborn JF (1985) Implantwerkstoff Hydroxylapatitkeramik. Quintessenz, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  45. Robert PY, Rulfi JY, Adenis JP (2003) Neue Keramikmaterialien zur Verwendung in der Anophthalmuschirurgie. Ophthalmologe 100:503–506

    Article  PubMed  CAS  ISI  Google Scholar 

  46. Rubin PA, et al. (1994) Comparison of fibrovascular ingrowth into hydroxyapatite and porous polyethylene orbital implants. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 10:96–103

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Goldberg RA, Dresner SC, Braslow RA, et al. (1994) Animal model of porous polyethylene orbital implants. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 10:101–109

    Google Scholar 

  48. Karcioglu ZA, Mullaney PB, Millar LC (1998) Extrusion of porous polyethylene orbital implant in recurrent retinoblastoma. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 14:37–44

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Karesh JW, Dresner SC (1994) High-density porous polyethylene (Medpor) as a successful anophthalmic socket implant. Ophthalmology 101:1688–1695; discussion 1695–1696

    PubMed  CAS  ISI  Google Scholar 

  50. Remulla HD, Rubin PA, Shore JW, et al. (1995) Complications of porous spherical orbital implants. Ophthalmology 102:586–593

    PubMed  CAS  ISI  Google Scholar 

  51. Long JA, et al. (2003) Enucleation: is wrapping the implant necessary for optimal motility? Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 19:194–197

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Jordan DR, Allen LH, Ells A (1995) The use of Vicryl mesh (polyglactin 910) for implantation of hydroxyapatite orbital implants. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 11:95–99

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Edelstein C, Shields CL, De Potter P, et al. (1997) Complications of motility peg placement for the hydroxyapatite orbital implant. Ophthalmology 104:1616–1621

    PubMed  CAS  ISI  Google Scholar 

  54. Cepela AC, Teske S (1996) Orbital implants. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 7:38–42

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Cowper TR (1995) Hydroxyapatite motility implants in ocular prosthetics. J Prosthet Dent 73:267–273

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Jordan DR, et al. (1999) Complications associated with pegging hydroxyapatite implants. Ophthalmology 106:505–512

    Article  PubMed  CAS  ISI  Google Scholar 

  57. Guillinta P, Vasani SN, Granet DB, Kikkawa DO (2003) Prosthetic motility in pegged versus unpegged integrated porous orbital implants. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 19:119–122

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Hase W (1976) Messung der maximalen Bewegungsstrecken der Bulbi. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 198:291–296

    Google Scholar 

  59. Custer PL, Trinkaus KM, Frornoff J (1999) Comparative motility of hydroxyapatite and alloplastic enucleation implants. Ophthalmology 106:513–516

    Article  PubMed  CAS  ISI  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Rudolf F. Guthoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael P. Schittkowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Artur Klett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Rostock, Doberaner Straße 140, 18057, Rostock, Germany

    Rudolf Guthoff MD (Professor of Ophthalmology) (Professor of Ophthalmology)

  2. Division of Ophthalmology R.D.Wood Ambulatory Care Building, University of Pennsylvania Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, 34th Street Civic Center Blvd., Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA

    James A. Katowitz MD (Professor of Ophthalmology) (Professor of Ophthalmology)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Guthoff, R.F., Schittkowski, M.P., Klett, A. (2006). Methods to Improve Prosthesis Motility in Enucleation Surgery Without Pegging and With Emphasis on Muscle Pedunculated Flaps. In: Guthoff, R., Katowitz, J.A. (eds) Oculoplastics and Orbit. Essentials in Ophthalmology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-29969-6_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-29969-6_17

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-22599-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-29969-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation