Motility of the Ocular Prosthesis in Anophthalmic Patients: Objective and Patient-perceived Findings

Renterghem, Victoria van; Ruiters, Sébastien; Mombaerts, Ilse

doi:10.1080/01676830.2022.2107687

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Prosthetic motility also has a significant impact on patient satisfaction and appearance, with up to three-quarters of anophthalmic patients experiencing some reduction. 16 Surgical trauma and/ or small implants may predispose to poor motility, the latter being reported in 23% to 35% of single-stage procedures 11,12 and mirroring our 25% rate.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

One-stage Intraconal Volume Modification for Exposed and Nonexposed Ball Implants

Vahdani,

Rose,

Marjanovic

et al. 2024

Ophthalmic Plastic &Amp; Reconstructive Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To assess long-term outcomes and reinterventions for exposed and nonexposed intraconal orbital implants after single-stage socket revisional surgery. Methods: Retrospective case-note review of patients with exposed or nonexposed orbital ball implants, who underwent a single-stage ball exchange (Group I) or ball removal with dermis-fat graft (Group II); Group I was subdivided as having either exposed (A) or nonexposed (B) implants. Outcomes were compared with similar cohorts undergoing multistage surgery. Results: Of 172 patients (54% male), 153 (89%) underwent ball exchange (Group I) and 19 (11%) had dermis-fat graft (Group II). With a mean follow up of 7.8 years, Group I patients without ball exposure (Group IB) had a slightly higher rate of reintervention for persistent volume deficit (21% vs. 9%; p = 0.163) and implant migration (6% vs. 0%; p = 0.091), while Group IA patients—having surgery for exposed implants—had more reexposures (7% vs. 3%; p = 0.270). Single-stage and 2-stage surgery had similar reintervention rates, with the exception of a trend toward fewer volume enhancements for those with nonexposed implants (17% vs. 30%; p = 0.380), and a shorter time to (re)exposure for exposed implants after 2-stage procedures (mean 0.33 vs. 3.5 years; p = 0.571). Group II patients required further volume enhancement in 32% of 1-stage procedures, and one patient needed graft removal. Conclusion: Single-stage volume modification is effective and the results are comparable to staged surgery for either exposed or nonexposed implants. Most patients report a stable prosthesis and satisfactory cosmesis, after a faster rehabilitation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%