Literature DB >> 12544792

Hydroxyapatite orbital implant vascularization assessed by magnetic resonance imaging.

Stephen R Klapper1, David R Jordan, Anna Ells, Steven Grahovac.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To report hydroxyapatite (HA) implant enhancement patterns on magnetic resonance (MR) images at varying time intervals after implantation.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 45 consecutive patients(from one author's practice) who underwent an MR imaging study 2 to 157 months after HA orbital implant placement. Implant fibrovascular ingrowth was assessed by analyzing the extent of implant enhancement seen on MR imaging. RESULTS Of 21 patients undergoing gadolinium-DTPA T1-weighted MR imaging 2 to 7 weeks after HA placement, 15 had enhancement limited to the implant rim (Grade I or less). Five patients had peripheral foci of enhancement (Grade II), and one patient had foci of enhancement extending to the center of the implant (Grade III). MR images obtained 9 to 15 weeks after HA insertion in all 14 patients had some degree of central enhancement (Grade III) and 11 had homogeneous enhancement throughout the implant (Grade IV or V). Seven patients in the homogeneous group were believed to have particularly intense enhancement patterns (Grade V). Of the 10 patients undergoing MR imaging from 31 to 69 weeks after surgery, 5 had Grade III enhancement and 5 had Grade IV enhancement.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated consistent central HA orbital implant enhancement on MR imaging in the 9- to 15-week group and the >31-week postoperative group. HA orbital implant drilling and peg placement should be performed after central vascularization of the spherical implant has occurred. The results of this study support the principle of performing orbital implant drilling and peg placement at least 5 to 6 months after HA implant insertion.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12544792     DOI: 10.1097/00002341-200301000-00006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0740-9303            Impact factor:   1.746


  6 in total

1.  Comparison of experimental porous silicone implants and porous silicone implants.

Authors:  JunHyuk Son; Chang-sik Kim; JaeWook Yang
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-12-28       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  [Porous orbital implants].

Authors:  B Cleres; H W Meyer-Rüsenberg
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 1.059

Review 3.  Integrated versus non-integrated orbital implants for treating anophthalmic sockets.

Authors:  Silvana Schellini; Regina El Dib; Leandro Re Silva; Joyce G Farat; Yuqing Zhang; Eliane C Jorge
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-11-07

4.  [Long-term results of the compatibility of a coralline hydroxyapatite implant as eye replacement].

Authors:  R Thiesmann; A Anagnostopoulos; B Stemplewitz
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 1.059

5.  Porous Hydroxyapatite and Aluminium-Oxide Ceramic Orbital Implant Evaluation Using CBCT Scanning: A Method for In Vivo Porous Structure Evaluation and Monitoring.

Authors:  Olga Lukáts; Péter Bujtár; George K Sándor; József Barabás
Journal:  Int J Biomater       Date:  2012-02-28

Review 6.  The Evolution of Orbital Implants and Current Breakthroughs in Material Design, Selection, Characterization, and Clinical Use.

Authors:  Xiao-Yi Chen; Xue Yang; Xing-Li Fan
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2022-02-17
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.