Literature DB >> 15778666

Exposure of orbital implants wrapped with polyester-urethane after enucleation for advanced retinoblastoma.

Heinrich Heimann1, Nikolaos E Bechrakis, Luz C Zepeda, Sarah E Coupland, Martin Hellmich, Michael H Foerster.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Enucleation is the main form of treatment for advanced retinoblastoma. The major complication of this procedure is orbital implant exposure. Different implants and wrapping materials are currently in use. The aim of the current study was to analyze the complications associated with the use of polyester-urethane, an artificial dura substitute, as a wrapping material for enucleation in advanced retinoblastoma.
METHODS: A retrospective review of 32 cases (28 patients), who were treated with enucleation for advanced retinoblastoma, was performed. The age of the patients ranged between 3 months and 6.7 years (median, 19 months). Additional chemotherapy was administered in 12 cases. The removed eyeball was replaced either with a silicone implant and polyester-urethane wrapping (13 cases) or hydroxyapatite, silicone-hydroxyapatite, or polyethylene implants without additional wrappings (19 cases). The follow-up period ranged from 7 months to 5.9 years (median, 22.4 months). Statistical analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method.
RESULTS: Single or multiple exposures occurred in 22% of cases (7/32). There were 6 exposures (46%, 6/13) in the group with polyester-urethane wrapping compared with only 1 exposure (5%, 1/19) in the implants without wrapping. This difference was statistically significant (p=0.0236). None of the other analyzed factors (additional chemotherapy, surgeon, age of the patient, or size of the implant) demonstrated a significant correlation to implant exposures.
CONCLUSIONS: Wrapping of orbital implants with polyester-urethane resulted in a high rate of implant exposures after enucleation for advanced retinoblastoma. In this series, the best results were achieved with integrated implants without additional wrapping.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15778666     DOI: 10.1097/01.iop.0000152495.25263.61

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


  5 in total

1.  Comparative study of modified and conventional secondary hydroxyapatite orbital implantations.

Authors:  Yong Zhao; Mao-Nian Zhang; Yun-Xian Gao; Xiao-Wei Gao; Bing Ren
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-10-18       Impact factor: 1.779

2.  The effect of cancer therapies on pediatric anophthalmic sockets.

Authors:  Yevgeniy Shildkrot; Maria Kirzhner; Barrett G Haik; Ibrahim Qaddoumi; Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo; Matthew W Wilson
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 12.079

3.  Complications of orbital endoimplantation in the Eye Clinic of the Lithuanian University of Health Sciences.

Authors:  Raimonda Piškinienė; Mantas Banevičius
Journal:  Acta Med Litu       Date:  2017

4.  Treatment of Exposed Hydroxyapatite Orbital Implants Wrapped with a Synthetic Dura Substitute.

Authors:  Woo Beom Shin; Jaesang Ko; Jin Sook Yoon
Journal:  Korean J Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-06

Review 5.  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
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.