Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Komplikationen der anophthalmischen Orbita – Therapie und Nachsorge

Complications of anophthalmic orbits—Treatment and aftercare

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Die Ophthalmologie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Die möglichen Komplikationen der anophthalmischen Orbita können auf Basis unterschiedlicher Pathomechanismen entstehen. Unterschieden werden allergische, infektiöse, entzündliche oder mechanische Ursachen. In dieser Übersichtsarbeit werden die unterschiedlichen Ätiologien beleuchtet sowie deren therapeutische Ansätze diskutiert.

Abstract

The possible complications of anophthalmic eye sockets can occur due to many different pathomechanisms. A differentiation is made between allergic, infectious, inflammatory or mechanical causes. This article gives an overview on the different etiologies of socket complications with their pathophysiology and treatment options.

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

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3

Literatur

  1. Aggarwal H, Singh SV, Kumar P, Kumar Singh A (2015) Prosthetic rehabilitation following socket reconstruction with blair-brown graft and conformer therapy for management of severe post-enucleation socket syndrome—A clinical report. J Prosthodont 24:329–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. AlHassan S, Galindo-Ferreiro A, Khandekar R, AlShaikh O, Schellini SA (2018) Deepening fornix technique using central split-medium thickness skin graft to treat contracted anophthalmic sockets. J Craniofac Surg 29:1607–1611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Allen L, Kolder HE, Bulgarelli EM, Bulgarelli DM (1980) Artificial eyes and tear measurements. Ophthalmology 87:155–157

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Anderson RL (1981) Tarsal strip procedure for correction of eyelid laxity and canthal malposition in the anophthalmic socket. Ophthalmology 88:895–903

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bailey CS, Buckley RJ (1991) Ocular prostheses and contact lenses. I—Cosmetic devices. BMJ 302:1010–1012

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bilkhu P, Wolffsohn JS, Taylor D, Gibson E, Hirani B, Naroo SA (2013) The management of ocular allergy in community pharmacies in the United Kingdom. Int J Clin Pharm 35:190–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bischoff G (2014) Giant papillary conjunctivitis. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 231:518–521

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Bohman E, Roed Rassmusen ML, Kopp ED (2014) Pain and discomfort in the anophthalmic socket. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 25:455–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bozkurt B, Akyurek N, Irkec M, Erdener U, Memis L (2007) Immunohistochemical findings in prosthesis-associated giant papillary conjunctivitis. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 35:535–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Christensen JN, Fahmy JA (1974) The bacterial flora of the conjunctival anophthalmic socket in glass prosthesis-carriers. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 52:801–809

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Colorado LH, Alzahrani Y, Pritchard N, Efron N (2016) Time course of changes in goblet cell density in symptomatic and asymptomatic contact lens wearers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 57:2888–2894

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Crochelet O, Maalouf T, Duron S, Froussart F, Rigal-Sastourne JC, George JL (2012) Efficacy and tolerability of highly crosslinked hyaluronic acid injections in the management of the enophthalmous orbit. J Fr Ophtalmol 35(441):e441–447

    Google Scholar 

  13. Detorakis ET, Engstrom RE, Straatsma BR, Demer JL (2003) Functional anatomy of the anophthalmic socket: insights from magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 44:4307–4313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ding J, Ma X, Xin Y, Li D (2018) Correction of lower eyelid retraction with hard palate graft in the anophthalmic socket. Can J Ophthalmol 53:458–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Franca IS, Medrado J, Franca VP, Soares EJ (2011) Treatment of dry anophthalmic cavities with labial salivary glands transplantation. Arq Bras Oftalmol 74:425–429

    Google Scholar 

  16. Groot AL, Remmers JS, Kloos RJ, Saeed P, Hartong DT (2021) Recurrent contracted sockets treated with personalized, three-dimensionally printed conformers and buccal grafts. Eur J Ophthalmol. https://doi.org/10.1177/11206721211000013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Guberina C, Hornblass A, Meltzner MA, Soarez V, Smith B (1983) Autogenous dermis-fat orbital implantation. Arch Ophthalmol 101:1586–1590

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Han LS, Keillor RB, Weatherhead RG (2021) Case series of shrinking hydroxyapatite orbital implants. Br J Ophthalmol 105:1338–1340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hatt M (1992) Orbitoplasty in patients with artificial eyes. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 200:424–427

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Heindl LM, Rokohl AC (2021) Orbital implants: material matters. Br J Ophthalmol 105:1337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hintschich C, Beyer-Machule C (1996) Dermis-Fett-Transplantat als primäres und sekundäres Orbitaimplantat – Komplikationen und Ergebnisse. Ophthalmologe 93:617–622

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hintschich C, Zonneveld F, Koornneef L (2001) Normal orbital volumes and its pathology in orbital socket surgery. Oper Tech Oculoplastic Orbital Reconstr Surg 4(1):3–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ibrahiem MF, Abdelaziz ST (2016) Shallow inferior conjunctival Fornix in contracted socket and anophthalmic socket syndrome: A novel technique to deepen the Fornix using fascia Lata strips. J Ophthalmol. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/3857579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Inchingolo F, Tatullo M, Pacifici A, Gargari M, Inchingolo AD, Inchingolo AM, Dipalma G, Marrelli M, Abenavoli FM, Pacifici L (2012) Use of dermal-fat grafts in the post-oncological reconstructive surgery of atrophies in the zygomatic region: clinical evaluations in the patients undergone to previous radiation therapy. Head Face Med 8:33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jang SY, Lee SY, Yoon JS (2013) Meibomian gland dysfunction in longstanding prosthetic eye wearers. Br J Ophthalmol 97:398–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kenny SE, Tye CB, Johnson DA, Kheirkhah A (2020) Giant papillary conjunctivitis: A review. Ocul Surf 18:396–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Keseru M, Grosse Darrelmann B, Green S, Galambos P (2015) Post enucleation socket syndrome—new and established surgical solutions. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 232:40–43

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Kim CY, Woo YJ, Lee SY, Yoon JS (2014) Postoperative outcomes of anophthalmic socket reconstruction using an autologous buccal mucosa graft. J Craniofac Surg 25:1171–1174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kim JH, Lee MJ, Choung HK, Kim NJ, Hwang SW, Sung MS, Khwarg SI (2008) Conjunctival cytologic features in anophthalmic patients wearing an ocular prosthesis. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 24:290–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kim S, Lee S, Chang H, Kim M, Kim MJ, Kim KH (2019) In vivo fluorescence imaging of conjunctival goblet cells. Sci Rep 9:15457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kim SS, Kawamoto HK, Kohan E, Bradley JP (2010) Reconstruction of the irradiated orbit with autogenous fat grafting for improved ocular implant. Plast Reconstr Surg 126:213–220

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Ko JS, Seo Y, Chae MK, Jang SY, Yoon JS (2018) Effect of topical loteprednol etabonate with lid hygiene on tear cytokines and meibomian gland dysfunction in prosthetic eye wearers. Eye (Lond) 32:439–445

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Koch KR, Trester W, Muller-Uri N, Trester M, Cursiefen C, Heindl LM (2016) Ocular prosthetics. Fitting, daily use and complications. Ophthalmologe 113:133–142

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Krishna G (1980) Contracted sockets—I (aetiology and types). Indian J Ophthalmol 28:117–120

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Kronish JW, Gonnering RS, Dortzbach RK, Rankin JGH, Reid DL, Phernetton TN (1990) The pathophysiology of the anophthalmic socket. Part I. Analysis of orbital blood flow. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 6:77–87

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Kronish JW, Gonnering RS, Dortzbach RK, Rankin JGH, Reid DL, Phernetton TN, Pitts WC, Berry GJ (1990) The pathophysiology of the anophthalmic socket. Part II. Analysis of orbital fat. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 6:88–95

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Kuijten MMP, Remmers JS, Mourits DL, de Graaf P, Hartong DT (2017) Three-Dimensionally printed conformers for treatment of congenital anophthalmos. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 33:394–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kumar S, Sugandhi P, Arora R, Pandey PK (2006) Amniotic membrane transplantation versus mucous membrane grafting in anophthalmic contracted socket. Orbit 25:195–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kwitko GM, Patel BC (2022) Blepharoplasty Ptosis surgery. StatPearls, Treasure Island

    Google Scholar 

  40. Li T, Shen J, Duffy MT (2001) Exposure rates of wrapped and unwrapped orbital implants following enucleation. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 17:431–435

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Mandour SS, Elmazar HM, Marey HM, Rahman AK, Sakr RA (2016) Mucous membrane grafting augmented with topical mitomycin C application in contracted socket repair surgeries. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 32:691–694

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Mattout HK, Fouda SM, Al-Nashar HY (2021) Evaluation of topical mitomycin‑C eye drops after reconstructive surgery for anophthalmic contracted socket. Clin Ophthalmol 15:4621–4627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. McCord CD, Moses JL (1979) Exposure of the inferior orbit with fornix incision and lateral canthotomy. Ophthalmic Surg 10:53–63

    Google Scholar 

  44. McLaughlin S, Welch J, MacDonald E, Mantry S, Ramaesh K (2014) Xerophthalmia—A potential epidemic on our doorstep? Eye (Lond) 28:621–623

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Meisler DM, Krachmer JH, Goeken JA (1981) An immunopathologic study of giant papillary conjunctivitis associated with an ocular prosthesis. Am J Ophthalmol 92:368–371

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Messmer EM (2015) The pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of dry eye disease. Dtsch Arztebl Int 112:71–81 (quiz 82)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Mouriaux F (2022) How to analyze conjunctival inflammation in dry anophthalmic socket syndrome (DASS)? Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-022-05899-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Nentwich MM, Schebitz-Walter K, Hirneiss C, Hintschich C (2014) Dermis fat grafts as primary and secondary orbital implants. Orbit 33(1):33–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Patel V, Allen D, Morley AM, Frcophth RM (2009) Features and management of an acute allergic response to acrylic ocular prostheses. Orbit 28:339–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Pine K, Sloan B, Stewart J, Jacobs RJ (2011) Concerns of anophthalmic patients wearing artificial eyes. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 39:47–52

    Google Scholar 

  51. Pine K, Sloan B, Stewart J, Jacobs RJ (2012) A survey of prosthetic eye wearers to investigate mucoid discharge. Clin Ophthalmol 6:707–713

    Google Scholar 

  52. Pine KR, Sloan B, Han KI, Swift S, Jacobs RJ (2013) Deposit buildup on prosthetic eye material (in vitro) and its effect on surface wettability. Clin Ophthalmol 7:313–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Pine KR, Sloan B, Jacobs RJ (2012) Biosocial profile of New Zealand prosthetic eye wearers. N Z Med J 125:29–38

    Google Scholar 

  54. Pine KR, Sloan B, Jacobs RJ (2012) Deposit buildup on prosthetic eyes and implications for conjunctival inflammation and mucoid discharge. Clin Ophthalmol 6:1755–1762

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Pine KR, Sloan B, Stewart J, Jacobs RJ (2013) The response of the anophthalmic socket to prosthetic eye wear. Clin Exp Optom 96:388–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Pine KR, Sloan BH, Jacobs RJ (2013) A proposed model of the response of the anophthalmic socket to prosthetic eye wear and its application to the management of mucoid discharge. Med Hypotheses 81:300–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Pine KR, Sloan BH, Jacobs RJ (2015) Clinical ocular prosthetics, 1. Aufl. Springer, Cham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  58. Pine NS, de Terte I, Pine K (2017) The impact of eye loss and prosthetic eye wear on recreational, occupational and social areas of functioning. J Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2:1016

    Google Scholar 

  59. Pine NS, de Terte I, Pine K (2017) Time heals: an investigation into how anophthalmic patients feel about eye loss and wearing a prosthetic eye. J Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2:1018

    Google Scholar 

  60. Pine NS, de Terte I, Pine KR (2017c) An investigation into discharge, visual perception, and appearance concerns of prosthetic eye wearers. Orbit 36:401–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Quaranta-Leoni FM (2008) Treatment of the anophthalmic socket. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 19:422–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Quaranta-Leoni FM, Fiorino MG, Quaranta-Leoni F, Di Marino M (2021) Anophthalmic socket syndrome: Prevalence, impact and management strategies. Clin Ophthalmol 15:3267–3281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Rokohl AC, Adler W, Koch KR, Mor JM, Jia R, Trester M, Pine NS, Pine KR, Heindl LM (2019) Cryolite glass prosthetic eyes-the response of the anophthalmic socket. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 257:2015–2023

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Rokohl AC, Koch KR, Adler W, Trester M, Trester W, Pine NS, Pine KR, Heindl LM (2018) Concerns of anophthalmic patients—A comparison between cryolite glass and polymethyl methacrylate prosthetic eye wearers. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 256:1203–1208

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Rokohl AC, Koch KR, Trester M, Heindl LM (2018) Cryolite glass ocular prostheses and coralline hydroxyapatite implants for eye replacement following enucleation. Ophthalmologe 115:793–794

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Rokohl AC, Koch KR, Trester M, Trester W, Pine KR, Heindl LM (2018) Concerns of anophthalmic patients wearing cryolite glass prosthetic eyes. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 34:369–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Rokohl AC, Kopecky A, Trester M, Wawer Matos PA, Pine KR, Heindl LM (2022) Post-enucleation socket syndrome—A novel pathophysiological definition. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 260(8):2427–2431

    Google Scholar 

  68. Rokohl AC, Mor JM, Trester M, Koch KR, Heindl LM (2019) Rehabilitation of anophthalmic patients with prosthetic eyes in Germany today—Supply possibilities, daily use, complications and psychological aspects. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 236:54–62

    Google Scholar 

  69. Rokohl AC, Pine NS, Adler W, Bartenschlager LAK, Wawer Matos PA, Trester M, Pine KR, Pförtner TK, Heindl LM (2022) Health literacy in patients wearing prosthetic eyes: A prospective cross-sectional study. Curr Eye Res 2:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  70. Rokohl AC, Trester M, Pine KR, Heindl LM (2020) Prevention of socket complications in anophthalmic patients. Curr Eye Res 45:1625–1626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Rokohl AC, Trester M, Guo Y, Adler W, Jaeger VK, Loreck N, Mor JM, Pine KR, Heindl LM (2020) Dry anophthalmic socket syndrome—Standardized clinical evaluation of symptoms and signs. Ocul Surf 18:453–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Rokohl AC, Trester M, Naderi P, Loreck N, Zwingelberg S, Bucher F, Pine KR, Heindl LM (2021) Dry anophthalmic socket syndrome—Morphological alterations in meibomian glands. Eye (Lond) 35:3358–3366

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Rokohl AC, Wall K, Trester M, Wawer Matos PA, Guo Y, Adler W, Pine KR, Heindl LM (2022) Novel point-of-care biomarkers of the dry anophthalmic socket syndrome: tear film osmolarity and matrix metalloproteinase 9 immunoassay. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-022-05895-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Ruiters S, Mombaerts I (2021) The prevalence of anophthalmic socket syndrome and its relation to patient quality of life. Eye (Lond) 35:1909–1914

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Schittkowski MP, Guthoff RF (2006) Injectable self inflating hydrogel pellet expanders for the treatment of orbital volume deficiency in congenital microphthalmos: preliminary results with a new therapeutic approach. Br J Ophthalmol 90:1173–1177

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Shah CT, Hughes MO, Kirzhner M (2014) Anophthalmic syndrome: a review of management. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 30:361–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Shapira Y, Worrell E, Litwin AS, Malhotra R (2021) The UK National Artificial Eye Questionnaire study: Predictors of artificial eye wearers’ experience part 1‑comfort and satisfaction. Eye (Lond) 35:2233–2240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Smit TJ, Koornneef L, Zonneveld FW, Groet E, Otto AJ (1990) Computed tomography in the assessment of the postenucleation socket syndrome. Ophthalmology 97:1347–1351

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Smith B, Petrelli R (1978) Dermis-fat-graft as a movable implant within the muscle cone. Am J Ophthalmol 85:62

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Srinivasan BD, Jakobiec FA, Iwamoto T, DeVoe AG (1979) Giant papillary conjunctivitis with ocular prostheses. Arch Ophthalmol 97:892–895

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Swann PG (2001) Giant papillary conjunctivitis associated with an ocular prosthesis. Clin Exp Optom 84:293–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Tawfik HA, Abdulhafez MH, Fouad YA, Rashed HO, Osman WM (2016) Revisiting the role of the myofibroblast in socket surgery: an immunohistochemical study. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 32:292–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Tawfik HA, Raslan AO, Talib N (2009) Surgical management of acquired socket contracture. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 20:406–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Thiesmann R, Anagnostopoulos A, Stemplewitz B (2018) Long-term results of the compatibility of a coralline hydroxyapatite implant as eye replacement. Ophthalmologe 115:131–136

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Tyers AG, Collin JR (1982) Orbital implants and post enucleation socket syndrome. Trans Ophthalmol Soc U K 102(Pt 1):90–92

    Google Scholar 

  86. Vagefi MR (2013) Minimally invasive approaches to orbital volume augmentation. Int Ophthalmol Clin 53:67–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Vagefi MR, McMullan TF, Burroughs JR, Georgescu D, McCann JD, Anderson RL (2011) Orbital augmentation with injectable calcium hydroxylapatite for correction of postenucleation/evisceration socket syndrome. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 27:90–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Vasquez RJ, Linberg JV (1989) The anophthalmic socket and the prosthetic eye. A clinical and bacteriologic study. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 5:277–280

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Vistnes LM (1976) Mechanism of upper lid ptosis in the anophthalmic orbit. Plast Reconstr Surg 58:539–545

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Wladis EJ, Aakalu VK, Sobel RK, Yen MT, Bilyk JR, Mawn LA (2018) Orbital implants in enucleation surgery: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 125:311–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Yang F, Li Z, Deng Y (2020) A custom-made conformer wrapped in lower oral mucosa for the correction of severely contracted socket. Eur J Ophthalmol. https://doi.org/10.1177/1120672120974940

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Zhao H, Chen JY, Wang YQ, Lin ZR, Wang S (2016) In vivo confocal microscopy evaluation of meibomian gland dysfunction in dry eye patients with different symptoms. Chin Med J (Engl) 129:2617–2622

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Zentrum für Augenheilkunde, Medizinische Fakultät und Uniklinik Köln, Universität zu Köln, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Köln, Deutschland

    Rebecca Lauber, Philomena A. Wawer Matos, Michael Simon,  Alexander C. Rokohl & Ludwig M. Heindl

  2. Centrum für Integrierte Onkologie (CIO) Aachen-Bonn-Köln-Düsseldorf, Köln, Deutschland

    Rebecca Lauber, Philomena A. Wawer Matos, Michael Simon,  Alexander C. Rokohl & Ludwig M. Heindl

  3. Klinik für Augenheilkunde, Universitätskrankenhaus Ostrava, Ostrava, Tschechien

    Adam Kopecky

  4. Medizinische Fakultät, Abteilung für kraniofaziale Chirurgie, Universität zu Ostrava, Ostrava, Tschechien

    Adam Kopecky

Authors
  1. Rebecca Lauber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adam Kopecky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Philomena A. Wawer Matos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael Simon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alexander C. Rokohl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ludwig M. Heindl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander C. Rokohl.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

R. Lauber, A. Kopecky, P.A. Wawer Matos, M. Simon, A.C. Rokohl und L.M. Heindl geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht. Es wird versichert, dass keine Verbindungen mit einer Firma, deren Produkt in dem Artikel genannt ist, oder einer Firma, die ein Konkurrenzprodukt vertreibt, bestehen. Die Präsentation des Themas ist unabhängig und die Darstellung der Inhalte produktneutral.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren. Alle Patienten, die über Bildmaterial oder anderweitige Angaben innerhalb des Manuskriptes zu identifizieren sind, haben hierzu ihre schriftliche Einwilligung gegeben.

Additional information

figure qr

QR-Code scannen & Beitrag online lesen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lauber, R., Kopecky, A., Wawer Matos, P.A. et al. Komplikationen der anophthalmischen Orbita – Therapie und Nachsorge. Ophthalmologie 120, 150–159 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-022-01800-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-022-01800-6

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation