ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: We compared orbital implants with hydroxyapatite and with Medpor (R) in operative group and observed clinical results by retrospective study. METHODS: We used hydroxyapatite implantation in 17 subjects(17 eyes) and Medpor(R) implantation in other 15 subjects (15 eyes) with enucleation and evisceration from April 1996 to May 2000. RESULTS: We observed clinical results for 10~34 month (average 20 month); Three cases of implant exposure, one case of peg extrusion, two cases of superficial conjunctival wound dehiscence, one case of granulation tissue overgrowth, and one case of implant self-infection after hydroxyapatite implantation; Two cases of implant exposure and one case of superficial conjunctivial wound dehiscence after Medpor(R) implantation. In measurement at 6 months after operation, fibrovascular ingrowth pattern after hydroxyapatite implantation was slightly better than Medpor R implantation, and prothesis motility was not different. CONCLUSIONS: We found high frequency of complication with implant exposure, superficial conjunctival wound dehiscence, granulation tissue formation after Hydroxyapatite implantation than Medpor(R) implantation, and that no different complication with the exception of noise of prosthesis movement in Medpor(R) implantation, which is better useful for peg drilling & enucleation. So it is thought to be Medpor(R) is more useful clinical materials for orbital implants than Hydroxyapatite.