PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy of primary placement of a motility coupling post (MCP) in evisceration with the porous polyethylene (PP) implant. DESIGN: Retrospective noncomparative, interventional case series. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty patients undergoing evisceration. METHODS: A modified evisceration technique with porous polyethylene implants was performed, in which an MCP was placed primarily during the initial surgery. All patients were observed postoperatively for a minimum of 3 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Socket motility, final position of the MCP in the orbit, patient satisfaction. RESULTS: At the last follow-up visit, an acceptable range of motility was attained in all patients. Nineteen patients had a centrally positioned MCP, and all patients were pleased with the cosmetic outcome and the range of motility achieved. Minor complications were noted, including a malpositioned MCP (n = 1) and poor motility in upgaze (n = 8). CONCLUSIONS: Primary peg placement at the time of evisceration with the PP implant is a promising technique with relatively minor complications so far, but properly constructed studies are required prospectively to compare motility with the MCP versus nonpegged implants.
PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy of primary placement of a motility coupling post (MCP) in evisceration with the porous polyethylene (PP) implant. DESIGN: Retrospective noncomparative, interventional case series. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty patients undergoing evisceration. METHODS: A modified evisceration technique with porous polyethylene implants was performed, in which an MCP was placed primarily during the initial surgery. All patients were observed postoperatively for a minimum of 3 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Socket motility, final position of the MCP in the orbit, patient satisfaction. RESULTS: At the last follow-up visit, an acceptable range of motility was attained in all patients. Nineteen patients had a centrally positioned MCP, and all patients were pleased with the cosmetic outcome and the range of motility achieved. Minor complications were noted, including a malpositioned MCP (n = 1) and poor motility in upgaze (n = 8). CONCLUSIONS: Primary peg placement at the time of evisceration with the PP implant is a promising technique with relatively minor complications so far, but properly constructed studies are required prospectively to compare motility with the MCP versus nonpegged implants.