Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of experimental porous silicone implants and porous silicone implants

  • Oculoplastics and Orbit
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

To investigate the extent and pattern of fibrovascular ingrowth of porous silicone sphere implants compared to porous polyethylene implants.

Methods

Experimental porous silicone sphere implants and porous polyethylene implants were implanted in the left socket of 20 New Zealand white rabbits after enucleation. Fibrovascular ingrowth and maturation was evaluated at 4 weeks and 8 weeks after implantation by histopathologic examination and scanning electron microscope.

Results

At 4 weeks after surgery, porous polyethylene implants showed deeper fibrovascular ingrowth than porous silicone sphere implants; 42.4% versus 34.2% of radius of the implants respectively (p = 0.047). However there was no significant difference in the depth of fibrovascular ingrowth between the two groups at 8 weeks after implantation, although porous polyethylene implants showed deeper fibrovascular ingrowth than porous silicone sphere implants; 71.6% versus 63.6% (p = 0.102).

Conclusions

Porous silicone orbital implants demonstrated a comparable extent of fibrovascular ingrowth to that for porous polyethylene implants. Therefore, this new porous silicone sphere implant may be a good candidate to substitute for current porous implants at a lower cost.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Reference

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Dutton JJ (1991) Coralline hydroxyapatite as an ocular implant. Ophthalmology 98:370–377

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Massry GG, Holds JB (1995) Coralline hydroxyapatite spheres as secondary orbital implants in anophthalmos. Ophthalmology 102:161–166

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Chuo JY, Dolman PJ, Ng TL, Buffam FV, White VA (2009) Clinical and histopathologic review of 18 explanted porous polyethylene orbital implants. Ophthalmology 116:349–354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Blaydon SM, Shepler TR, Neuhaus RW, White WL, Shore JW (2003) The porous polyethylene (Medpor) spherical orbital implant: a retrospective study of 136 cases. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 19:364–371

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jordan DR, Brownstein S, Robinson J (2006) Infected aluminum oxide orbital implant. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 22:66–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jordan DR, Brownstein S, Dorey M, Yuen VH, Gilberg S (2004) Fibrovascularization of porous polyethylene (Medpor) orbital implant in a rabbit model. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 20:136–143

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Rubin PA, Nicaeus TE, Warner MA, Remulla HD (1997) Effect of sucralfate and basic fibroblast growth factor on fibrovascular ingrowth into hydroxyapatite and porous polyethylene alloplastic implants using a novel rabbit model. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 13:8–17

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Rubin PA, Popham JK, Bilyk JR, Shore JW (1994) Comparison of fibrovascular ingrowth into hydroxyapatite and porous polyethylene orbital implants. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 10:96–103

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bigham WJ, Stanley P, Cahill JM Jr, Curran RW, Perry AC (1999) Fibrovascular ingrowth in porous ocular implants: the effect of material composition, porosity, growth factors, and coatings. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 15:317–325

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Viswanathan P, Sagoo MS, Olver JM (2007) UK national survey of enucleation, evisceration and orbital implant trends. Br J Ophthalmol 91:616–619

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Su GW, Yen MT (2004) Current trends in managing the anophthalmic socket after primary enucleation and evisceration. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 20:274–280

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Jordan DR, Gilberg S, Bawazeer A (2004) Coralline hydroxyapatite orbital implant (Bio-Eye): experience with 158 patients. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 20:69–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Seong Y, Lee S, Kim S (2001) Morphological study of a new orbital implant: hydroxyapatite-coated porous alumina in rabbit. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 42:354–361

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chalasani R, Poole-Warren L, Conway RM, Ben-Nissan B (2007) Porous orbital implants in enucleation: a systematic review. Surv Ophthalmol 52:145–155

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mawn LA, Jordan DR, Gilberg S (1998) Scanning electron microscopic examination of porous orbital implants. Can J Ophthalmol 33:203–209

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Shields CL, Shields JA, Eagle RC Jr, De Potter P (1991) Histopathologic evidence of fibrovascular ingrowth four weeks after placement of the hydroxyapatite orbital implant. Am J Ophthalmol 111:363–366

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. De Potter P, Duprez T, Cosnard G (2000) Postcontrast magnetic resonance imaging assessment of porous polyethylene orbital implant (Medpor). Ophthalmology 107:1656–1660

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Klapper SR, Jordan DR, Ells A, Grahovac S (2003) Hydroxyapatite orbital implant vascularization assessed by magnetic resonance imaging. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 19:46–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by a grant of the Korea Healthcare Technology R&D Project, Ministry for Health, Welfare & Family Affairs, Republic of Korea. (A084120)

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Yeungnam University College of Medicine, Daegu, South Korea

    JunHyuk Son

  2. Department of Ophthalmology, Chungnam National University College of Medicine, Daejeon, South Korea

    Chang-sik Kim

  3. Department of Ophthalmology, Inje University College of Medicine, Busan Paik Hospital, 633-165 Kaekum-dong, Busanjin-gu, Busan, 614-735, South Korea

    JaeWook Yang

Authors
  1. JunHyuk Son
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chang-sik Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. JaeWook Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to JaeWook Yang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Son, J., Kim, Cs. & Yang, J. Comparison of experimental porous silicone implants and porous silicone implants. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 250, 879–885 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-011-1902-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-011-1902-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation