Subject(s)
Immunosuppression Therapy , Melanoma , Humans , Prognosis , Risk Factors , Skin NeoplasmsSubject(s)
Blepharoptosis/congenital , Blepharoptosis/surgery , Polypropylenes , Suture Techniques , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Infant , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Young AdultABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To present long-term follow-up data on enucleations and eviscerations carried out with placement of spherical porous polyethylene implants. METHODS: A retrospective, interventional, noncomparative case series of all patients undergoing primary evisceration or enucleation surgery from one teaching hospital ophthalmology department. RESULTS: In total, 106 cases were identified. Eighty patients (75.5%) underwent enucleation (group A) and 26 (24.5%) underwent evisceration (group B). Patient demographics were similar in both groups. Mean implant size in group A was 20.5 mm and 17.2 mm in group B. Mean follow-up in group A was 40 months (range, 12 to 80 months). Mean follow-up in group B was 63 months (range, 12 to 72 months). Six cases (7.5%) in group A had complications (excluding implant exposure), whereas one case (3.8%) in group B had a complication (excluding implant exposure). Five patients (6.3%) in group A had implant exposure; 14 cases (53.8%) of implant exposure occurred in group B. CONCLUSIONS: Our case series revealed a significantly higher incidence of implant exposure after evisceration than after enucleation. Our data suggest that enucleation should be the procedure of choice when removing an eye to minimize the risk of subsequent complications, particularly orbital implant exposure.
Subject(s)
Biocompatible Materials , Eye Enucleation , Eye Evisceration , Intraoperative Complications , Orbital Implants , Polyethylenes , Postoperative Complications , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Porosity , Prosthesis Implantation , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To present a small case series of orbital implant exposures treated with porcine dermal collagen (Permacol, Tissue Science Laboratories PLC, Aldershot, Hants, UK) patching. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of three cases of orbital implant exposure treated with Permacol patching. RESULTS: Three cases were identified. There were 4 operative episodes of Permacol patching (one socket had two attempts at permacol patching). In all 4 cases the patch rapidly failed and melted away leaving behind the orbital implant exposure. All 3 patients required implant removal. CONCLUSIONS: Orbital implant exposure remains a major long-term complication of evisceration and enucleation procedures. On the basis of our experience, we would not recommend using Permacol as a non-autologous material for covering exposed Medpor (Medpor, Porex Surgical, Atlanta, Georgia, USA) orbital implants. Further study is required to fully assess the safety and efficacy profile of Permacol in socket surgery.
