Literature DB >> 12644757

Prosthetic motility in pegged versus unpegged integrated porous orbital implants.

Paulo Guillinta1, Sunil N Vasani, David B Granet, Don O Kikkawa.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To objectively measure and compare prosthetic motility in pegged versus unpegged orbital implants and to determine subjective patient assessment of motility after the pegging procedure.
METHODS: A prospective case series of 10 patients with integrated porous orbital implants, who had secondary motility peg placement procedure, were studied. Infrared oculography was used to quantitatively assess pegged and unpegged prosthetic eye motility in horizontal and vertical excursions.
RESULTS: For horizontal excursions, prosthetic motility in unpegged implants retained an average of 49.6% of measured motility of the contralateral normal eye, which increased to 86.5% with peg placement (P<0.05). For vertical excursions, prosthetic motility in unpegged implants retained an average of 51.3% of measured motility of the contralateral normal eye, which increased to 54.3% with peg placement (P>0.3). Nine of 10 patients judged their motility as "significantly improved," and 1 patient gave a rating of "some improvement" after peg placement. Four of 10 patients had granulomas around the peg sites.
CONCLUSIONS: Objective assessment of prosthetic motility shows a significant increase in horizontal gaze after motility peg placement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12644757     DOI: 10.1097/01.IOP.0000056022.07896.06

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


  8 in total

Review 1.  [Ocular prosthetics. Fitting, daily use and complications].

Authors:  K R Koch; W Trester; N Müller-Uri; M Trester; C Cursiefen; L M Heindl
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 1.059

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.  A survey of satisfaction in anophthalmic patients wearing ocular prosthesis.

Authors:  Jong-Suk Song; Jaeryung Oh; Se Hyun Baek
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2005-08-17       Impact factor: 3.117

5.  Effects and complications of placement of motility coupling post in porous polyethylene orbital implants.

Authors:  Hong-guang Cui; Rong-rong Hu; Hui-yan Li; Wei Han
Journal:  J Zhejiang Univ Sci B       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.066

6.  The efficacy of acrylic acid grafting and arginine-glycine-aspartic acid peptide immobilization on fibrovascular ingrowth into porous polyethylene implants in rabbits.

Authors:  Byung Woo Park; Hee Seok Yang; Se Hyun Baek; Kwideok Park; Dong Keun Han; Tae Soo Lee
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2006-11-22       Impact factor: 3.535

7.  A Digital Microscreen for the Enhanced Appearance of Ocular Prosthetic Motility (an American Ophthalmological Society Thesis).

Authors:  Jeremiah P Tao; Emily S Charlson; Yinheng Zhu; Zonglin Guo; Wanli Chen; Xun Zhan; Hongjian Shi; Ian G Harris
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-04-11       Impact factor: 5.488

8.  Association between Subjective and Objective Assessment of Enucleation Outcome Depending on the Presence of an Orbital Implant in Patients with Uveal Melanoma.

Authors:  Weronika Pociej-Marciak; Bożena Romanowska-Dixon; Katarzyna Żuber-Łaskawiec; Mojca Globočnik Petrovič; Izabella Karska-Basta
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-04-12       Impact factor: 4.964

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.