Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Post-operative orbital imaging: a focus on implants and prosthetic devices

  • Diagnostic Neuroradiology
  • Published:
Neuroradiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Accurate interpretation of orbital imaging in the presence of either orbital implants requires a sound knowledge of both the surgical approach used and the imaging characteristics of the implanted devices themselves. In this article, the radiological appearance of the various devices used in ophthalmology, and their relationship to other orbital structures, is reviewed. In addition, the intended anatomical location, function of these devices, and clinical indications for their use are provided.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Yanoff M, Duker JS (2008) Ophthalmology, 3rd edn. Mosby, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  2. Restori M (2008) Imaging the vitreous: optical coherence tomography and ultrasound imaging. Eye (Lond) 22(10):1251–1256. doi:10.1038/eye.2008.30

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Schwartz SG, Flynn HW Jr, Mieler WF (2013) Update on retinal detachment surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 24(3):255–261. doi:10.1097/ICU.0b013e32835f8e6b

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lane JI, Watson RE Jr, Witte RJ et al (2003) Retinal detachment: imaging of surgical treatments and complications. Radiographics 23(4):983–994

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tsui I (2012) Scleral buckle removal: indications and outcomes. Surv Ophthalmol 57(3):253–263. doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2011.11.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Swanger RS, Crum AV, Klett ZG et al (2011) Postsurgical imaging of the globe. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 32(1):57–63. doi:10.1053/j.sult.2010.09.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Falkner-Radler C, Myung JS, Moussa S et al (2011) Trends in primary retinal detachment surgery: results of a Bicenter study. Retina 31(5):928–936

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Patel S, Pasquale LR (2010) Glaucoma drainage devices: a review of the past, present, and future. Semin Ophthalmol 25(5–6):265–270. doi:10.3109/08820538.2010.518840

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gedde SJ, Panarelli JF, Banitt MR et al (2013) Evidenced-based comparison of aqueous shunts. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 24(2):87–95. doi:10.1097/ICU.0b013e32835cf0f5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Melamed S, Fiore PM (1990) Molteno implant surgery in refractory glaucoma. Surv Ophthalmol 34(6):441–448

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Schwartz KS, Lee RK, Gedde SJ (2006) Glaucoma drainage implants: a critical comparison of types. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 17(2):181–189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Al-Torbak AA, Al-Shahwan S, Al-Jadaan I et al (2005) Endophthalmitis associated with the Ahmed glaucoma valve implant. Br J Ophthalmol 89(4):454–458

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Strampelli B (1963) Keratoprosthesis with osteodental tissue. Am J Ophthalmol 89:1029–1039

    Google Scholar 

  14. Falcinelli G, Barogi G, Taloni M (1993) Osteoodontokeratoprosthesis: present experience and future prospects. Refract Corneal Surg 9:193–194

    Google Scholar 

  15. Liu C, Paul B, Tandon R et al (2005) The osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis (OOKP). Semin Ophthalmol 20(2):113–128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fong KCS, Ferrett CG, Tandon R et al (2005) Imaging of osteo-odonto-keratoprosthesis by electron beam tomography. Br J Ophthalmol 89:956–959. doi:10.1136/bjo.2004.061424

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Ginat DT, Moonis G, Hayden BC et al (2012) Imaging the postoperative orbit. In: Ginat DT, Westesson PA (eds) Atlas of Postsurgical Neuroradiology. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15828-5_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Nassab RS, Thomas SS, Murray D (2007) Orbital exenteration for advanced periorbital skin cancers: 20 years experience. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 60(10):1103–1109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Finger PT (2009) Radiation therapy for orbital tumours: concepts, current use, and ophthalmic radiation side effects. Surv Ophthalmol 54:545–658

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hanna SL, Lemmi MA, Langston JW et al (1990) Treatment of choroidal melanoma: MR imaging in the assessment of radioactive plaque position. Radiology 176:851–853

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Onerci M (2002) Dacryocystorhinostomy. Diagnosis and treatment of nasolacrimal canal obstructions. Rhinology 40(2):49–65

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Trotter WL, Meyer DR (2000) Endoscopic conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy with Jones tube placement. Ophthalmology 107(6):1206–1209

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Bartley GB, Gustafson RO (1990) Complications of malpositioned Jones tubes. Am J Ophthalmol 109(1):66–69

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Aksoy FG, Gomori JM, Halpert M (1999) CT and MR imaging of contact lenses and intraocular lens implants. Comput Med Imaging Graph 23:205–208

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Ethical standards and patient consent

We declare that this manuscript does not contain clinical studies or patient data.

Conflict of interest

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Diagnostic Neuroradiology, Barts Health NHS Trust, Royal London Hospital, Whitechapel Road, London, E1 1BB, UK

    Ashok Adams

  2. Diagnostic Neuroradiology, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK

    Kshitij Mankad

  3. Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, UK

    Cornelia Poitelea & David H. Verity

  4. National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK

    Indran Davagnanam

Authors
  1. Ashok Adams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kshitij Mankad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cornelia Poitelea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David H. Verity
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Indran Davagnanam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashok Adams.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Adams, A., Mankad, K., Poitelea, C. et al. Post-operative orbital imaging: a focus on implants and prosthetic devices. Neuroradiology 56, 925–935 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-014-1403-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-014-1403-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation