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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Suggested Readings
Piest KL, Welsh MG. Pedatric enucleation, evisceration and exenteration techniques. In: Katowitz JA editior. Pediatric oculoplastic surgery, Chapter 32. Springer; 2002. pp. 617–27.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Kaltreider SA. The ideal ocular prosthesis: analysis of prosthetic volume. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;16:388–92.
Viswanathan P, Sagoo MS, Olver JM. UK national survey of enucleation, evisceration and orbital implant trends. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007;91:616–9.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sen, M., Honavar, S.G. (2020). Orbital Implants. In: El Toukhy, E. (eds) Oculoplastic Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36934-7_46
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36934-7_46
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-36933-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-36934-7
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)