Advertisement

Orbital Implants

  • Mrittika Sen
  • Santosh G. HonavarEmail author
Chapter
  • 47 Downloads

Abstract

A major focus of research and development in the last couple of decades is the newer materials for orbital implant. Porous materials are preferred primarily because of vascularization and integration that occur. These implants are less likely to migrate than silicone or PMMA implants and are associated with better prosthesis motility especially when coupled with a peg. However, porous implants are significantly more expensive and are associated with higher rates of exposure than traditional non-integrated implants. Wrapping or “capping” of these implants appears to reduce the exposure rate to acceptable levels. Implant size is crucial and should be customized. Muscle attachment provides excellent results in patients who do not wish to consider a motility peg placement.

Keywords

Enucleation Evisceration Orbital implants Hydroxyapatite Medpor Dermis-fat graft 

Suggested Readings

  1. 1.
    Piest KL, Welsh MG. Pedatric enucleation, evisceration and exenteration techniques. In: Katowitz JA editior. Pediatric oculoplastic surgery, Chapter 32. Springer; 2002. pp. 617–27.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nunnery WR, Cepela MA, Heinz GW, Zale D, Martin RT. Extrusion rate of silicone spherical anophthalmic socket implants. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 1993;9:90–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Oestreicher JH, Liu E, Berkowitz M. Complications of hydroxyapatite orbital implants. A review of 100 consecutive cases and a comparison of dexon mesh (polyglycolic acid) with scleral wrapping. Ophthalmology.1997;104:324–29.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jordon DR, Gilberg S, Mawn L, et al. The synthetic hydroxyapatite implant:a report on 65 patients. Opthal Plast Reconstr Surg.1998;14:250–55.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tabatabaee Z, Mazloumi M, Rajabi MT, Khalilzadeh O, Kassaee A, Moghimi S, Eftekhar H, Goldberg RA. Comparison of the exposure rate of wrapped hydroxyapatite (Bio-Eye) versus unwrapped porous polyethylene (Medpor) orbital implants in enucleated patients. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;27(2):114–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Custer PL, Kennedy RH, Woog JJ, Kaltreider SA, Meyer DR. Orbital implants in enucleation surgery: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:2054–061. (OVID).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaltreider SA. The ideal ocular prosthesis: analysis of prosthetic volume. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;16:388–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Viswanathan P, Sagoo MS, Olver JM. UK national survey of enucleation, evisceration and orbital implant trends. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007;91:616–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wladis EJ, Aakalu VK, Sobel RK, Yen MT, Bilyk JR, Mawn LA. Orbital implants in enucleation surgery: a report by the american academy of ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2018;125(2):311–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ophthalmic Plastic Surgery and Ocular OncologyCentre for SightHyderabadIndia
  2. 2.Ophthalmic Plastic Surgery and Ocular Oncology, Centre for SightHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations