Buried Quasi-integrated Enucleation Implant of Proplast II A Preliminary Report

Girard, Louis; Eguez, Ismael; Soper, Joseph W.; Soper, Mark; Esnaola, Nestor F.; Homsy, Charles A.

doi:10.1097/00002341-199006000-00014

Cited by 13 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A previous study shows the multifaceted ingredients used in the production of OI. Between 1970 and 1990, two Teflon-based composite grafts, Proplast I (Teflon/carbon fiber sphere) ( Neuhaus et al, 1984 ) and Proplast II (Teflon/alumina composite through a mount on the frontal side that might assimilate with the optical prosthesis in a “lock-and-key” fashion) ( Girard et al, 1990a ; Girard et al, 1990b ), were tested in medical settings. Proplast II and Proplast I were later discontinued due to long-lasting adverse effects, such as late contaminations in the former ( Whear et al, 1993 ) and deprived movability in the latter ( Christenbury, 1991 ) due to lack of vascularization.…”

Section: An Overview Of the Various Biomaterials For Ocular Implantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Evolution of Orbital Implants and Current Breakthroughs in Material Design, Selection, Characterization, and Clinical Use

Chen

Yang

Fan

2022

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is occasionally essential to surgically remove the damaged eye of the patient in the case of serious oculoorbital injuries, intraocular cancers, and other life-threatening diseases. An orbital implant is placed into the anophthalmic socket after the eye is removed to provide adequate volume reinstatement and revamp the cosmetic look of a normal eye. In the previous few decades, implant design and material selection criteria have progressed from basic nonporous polymeric spheres to devices with more complicated shapes and functions to ensure improved long-term clinical results. Because of their highly interconnected porous design, ceramic and polymeric porous implants have found popularity as a passive framework for fibrovascular ingrowth, with lower obstacle rates and the option of setting to improve prosthetic eye mobility. These materials, however, are not without flaws. The danger of migration and extrusion, infections after surgery, and poor motility transferred to the cosmetic ocular prosthesis are important elements of orbital implants of today. As a result, the development of novel biomaterials with improved functionalities (i.e., antibacterial effect, angiogenesis, and in situ moldability) that allow better eye replacement is more desirable than ever, highlighting one of the most challenging aspects of research topics in the field of ocular implants. This study highlights the history of orbital implants. It gives an outline of current advancements in the area, over and above some essential observations for materials design, selection, characterization, and transformation to clinical applications.

show abstract

Section: An Overview Of the Various Biomaterials For Ocular Implantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Evolution of Orbital Implants and Current Breakthroughs in Material Design, Selection, Characterization, and Clinical Use

Chen

Yang

Fan

2022

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The advantages of porous and quasi-integrated implants, in terms of fibrovascular in-growth and motility, respectively, was merged for the first time by Girard and co-workers [168,169] who described a porous quasi-integrated enucleation implant made of Proplast II (Vitek, Inc., Houston, TX). It differed from Proplast implant I in its composition, being constituted by Teflon and alumina, and in having a siliconized non-porous posterior surface to allow smoother movements, together with a porous anterior portion to facilitate fibrovascular in-growth.…”

Section: Porous Quasi-integrated Implantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomaterials for orbital implants and ocular prostheses: Overview and future prospects

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In the 1980s, the implantation of porous enucleation implants made of Proplast II, an evolution of Proplast I, was reported. This new device was different from its predecessor in the composition (Proplast II was an alumina/polytetrafluoroethylene composite) and in having a pore-graded structure (a porous anterior portion and a siliconized non-porous posterior surface to allow smoother movements) [137,138]. Proplast implant II had a nipple on its anterior surface (lined by the patient's conjunctiva) that could integrate with a depression on the posterior surface of the ocular prosthesis.…”

Section: Composites and Coatingsmentioning

confidence: 99%