Porous orbital implants in enucleation: A systematic review

被引:100
作者
Chalasani, Rajeev
Poole-Warren, Laura
Conway, R. Max
Ben-Nissan, Besini
机构
[1] Univ NSW, Grad Sch Biomed Engn, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[2] Sydney Eye Hosp, Save Sight Inst, Ocular Oncol Unit, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[3] St Vincent Hosp, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[4] Univ Technol Sydney, Dept Chem Mat & Forens Sci, Sydney, NSW 2007, Australia
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
aluminium oxide; enucleation; hydroxyapatite; motilit; pegging; porous orbital implants; porous polyethylene; wrapping;
D O I
10.1016/j.survophthal.2006.12.007
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 [眼科学];
摘要
Orbital implants have been used for cosmesis following surgical removal of the eyeball, or enucleation, for over a century. Implant design has progressed significantly in recent years with the use of porous devices, with the theoretical advantages of reduced complications and improved cosmesis. However, in some cases the theoretical benefits have not fully translated into clinical results. In this article the use of orbital implants in enucleation, with a particular focus on the newer porous biomaterials that have gained prominence over the last 15 years, is reviewed. Specific factors identified as affecting the performance of porous orbital implants include the material used, pore size, and morphology. Mechanical factors have received little consideration in the past and may form a basis for the use of higher compliance porous materials in the future. Of the porous materials in use, Current clinical evidence is not. sufficient to suggest either that porous implants are superior to non-porous implants, or that one material is more suited to the application than another. Future developments in this field require randomized controlled clinical trials with extensive follow-up as complications may not become evident until over 5 years post-implantation.
引用
收藏
页码:145 / 155
页数:11
相关论文
共 68 条
[1]
The quasi-integrated porous polyethylene orbital implant [J].
Anderson, RL ;
Yen, MT ;
Lucci, LM ;
Caruso, RT .
OPHTHALMIC PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2002, 18 (01) :50-55
[2]
[Anonymous], OPHTHAL PLAST RECONS
[3]
Fibrovascular ingrowth in porous ocular implants: The effect of material composition, porosity, growth factors, and coatings [J].
Bigham, WJ ;
Stanley, P ;
Cahill, JM ;
Curran, RW ;
Perry, AC .
OPHTHALMIC PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 1999, 15 (05) :317-325
[4]
The porous polyethylene (Medpor) spherical orbital implant - A retrospective study of 136 cases [J].
Blaydon, SM ;
Shepler, TR ;
Neuhaus, RW ;
White, WL ;
Shore, JW .
OPHTHALMIC PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2003, 19 (05) :364-371
[5]
Cepela M, 1996, Curr Opin Ophthalmol, V7, P38, DOI 10.1097/00055735-199610000-00009
[6]
CHRISTEL PS, 1992, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, P10
[7]
Intraorbital implants after enucleation and their complications - A 10-year review [J].
Christmas, NJ ;
Gordon, CD ;
Murray, TG ;
Tse, D ;
Johnson, T ;
Garonzik, S ;
O'Brien, JM .
ARCHIVES OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 1998, 116 (09) :1199-1203
[8]
Comparison of artificial eye amplitudes with acrylic and hydroxyapatite spherical enucleation implants [J].
Colen, TP ;
Paridaens, DA ;
Lemij, HG ;
Mourits, MP ;
van den Bosch, WA .
OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2000, 107 (10) :1889-1894
[9]
Enucleation: Past, present, and future [J].
Custer, PL .
OPHTHALMIC PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2000, 16 (05) :316-321
[10]
Comparative motility of hydroxyapatite and alloplastic enucleation implants [J].
Custer, PL ;
Trinkaus, KM ;
Fornoff, J .
OPHTHALMOLOGY, 1999, 106 (03) :513-516