2005
DOI: 10.1097/01.iop.0000175034.88019.a5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Enucleation With Unwrapped Porous and Nonporous Orbital Implants: A 15-Year Experience

Abstract: Orbital implant migration occurred in a significantly greater proportion of patients who received a nonporous implant than in those who received a porous implant. Implant exposure occurred at a low rate that was not significantly different in the two subgroups.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
30
0
2

Year Published

2011
2011
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 69 publications
(36 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
30
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Porous orbital implant permitted fibrovascular ingrowth and decreased the risk of infection 1. The complications such as wound dehiscence and implant exposure became important problems.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Porous orbital implant permitted fibrovascular ingrowth and decreased the risk of infection 1. The complications such as wound dehiscence and implant exposure became important problems.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It also permits better fibrovascular ingrowth compared with traditional alloplastic implants and is thought to reduce the risk of implant extrusion 1. Hydroxyapatite (HA), porous polyethylene and aluminium oxide are the three most common porous orbital implants.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Orbital implant exposure after enucleation or evisceration is a serious complication occurring weeks to months after surgery, at rates between 2 to 13% after enucleation and 0 to 3.3% after evisceration (Custer and Trinkaus, 2007;Su and Yen, 2004;Custer et al, 2003;Hornblass et al, 1995;Trichopoulos and Augsburger, 2005). If implant exposure does occur, the use of autologous dermis-fat or hard-palate mucosa for patch grafts is certainly an option (Li et al 2001;Remulla et al, 1995;Jordan, 2004;Gayre et al, 2002;Soparkar et al, 2000).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…The exposure rates of porous implants range from 5 to 10% depending on the study (Custer and Trinkaus, 2007;Su and Yen, 2004;Custer et al, 2003;Hornblass et al, 1995;Trichopoulos and Augsburger, 2005). The porous nature of these implants facilitates vascularization and stable incorporation into the socket with less chance of migration, but at the same time may result in a higher rate of exposure (Blaydon et al, 2003;Kim et al, 1994).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…1 There is a recent trend of wrapping a PMMA or silicone implant in donor sclera and attaching the extraocular muscles to the sclera to provide better implant centering and prosthesis motility. 2 Hydroxyapatite, a complex calcium-phosphate salt, is a component of human bone. The porous hydroxyapatite implant allows fibrovascular ingrowth into it and gets incorporated into the orbital tissue, minimizing the chance of displacement and extrusion as well as providing better motility.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%