Hydrogel Implant for Scleral Buckling

Scleral and episcleral histological changes related to encircling explants in 20 eyes

“…In our series, silicone capsules were only made of fibrous tissue. Introduced in 1981, hydrogel was submitted to numerous studies without reporting evidence of fragmentation (Refojo & Leong 1981;Refojo et al 1980;Tolentino et al 1981Tolentino et al , 1983Tolentino et al , 1985Ho et al 1984). Hydrogel internal porous structure allows antibiotic release in the implantation site after a previous soaking in an antibiotic solution .…”

Miragel explant fragmentation 10 years after scleral buckling surgery

“…The initial enthusiasm for the use of this type of explant was for the following reasons: 5,6 (1) The explants were soft and elastic and considered less likely to erode through the conjunctiva. Miragel explants were subsequently withdrawn because of late complications.…”

“…4,5 The topographic pattern described is distinctly different from that seen in keratoconus, in which a small area of high corneal power is surrounded by concentric bands of low corneal power. 6 These characteristic features help to differentiate this condition from other noninflammatory corneal thinning disorders such as keratoconus, posterior keratoconus, and keratoglobus. It also needs to be differentiated from peripheral corneal disorders associated with inflammation such as Terrien's marginal degeneration, Mooren's ulceration, and ulcers associated with connective tissue disorders.…”

MIRAgel: the immunohistochemical expression of CD3, CD34, and CD68 in the surrounding capsule

“…[1][2][3] Hydrogel, which was originally known as 'MAI' and subsequently commercialized as 'MIRAgel' (MIRA Inc., Waltham, MA, USA), initially seemed to be the ideal implant material because it has a soft pliable texture and shows low risk of infection 1-3 at 6 to 53 months after surgery. 3 However, enthusiasm over its use began to wane in the 1990s because of its unanticipated instability in vivo.…”

“…[1][2][3] Hydrogel, which was originally known as 'MAI' and subsequently commercialized as 'MIRAgel' (MIRA Inc., Waltham, MA, USA), initially seemed to be the ideal implant material because it has a soft pliable texture and shows low risk of infection 1-3 at 6 to 53 months after surgery. 3 However, enthusiasm over its use began to wane in the 1990s because of its unanticipated instability in vivo. [4][5][6] An increasing number of reports of the swelling and fragmentation 7,8 of this buckling material, which produced orbital discomfort and diplopia 7 to 10 years after implantation, led to its discontinuation of use in 1995.…”