PURPOSE: To compare the rates of implant exposure and implant migration among patients who received an unwrapped nonporous spherical implant versus an unwrapped porous spherical implant immediately after enucleation. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of a series of 258 patients who received either an unwrapped nonporous spherical implant (n = 68) or an unwrapped porous spherical implant (n = 190). Actuarial rates of migration of the implant and conjunctival dehiscence leading to implant exposure were computed. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients received an unwrapped nonporous implant (polymethylacrylate [PMMA]) and 190 patients received an unwrapped porous implant (139 hydroxyapatite [HA] and 51 porous polyethylene [Medpor]). Median follow-up duration in this study was 37.6 months. Implant exposure occurred in 1 of the 68 nonporous implant cases (1.5%) and in 4 of the 190 porous implant cases (2.1%). This difference is not statistically significant (P = 0.85). In contrast, clinically significant implant migration occurred substantially more frequently in the patients who received a nonporous implant. The cumulative actuarial probability of implant migration at 60 months was 15.5% for the nonporous implants versus 0.7% for the porous implants. This difference was statistically significant (P = 0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: Orbital implant migration occurred in a significantly greater proportion of patients who received a nonporous implant than in those who received a porous implant. Implant exposure occurred at a low rate that was not significantly different in the two subgroups.
PURPOSE: To compare the rates of implant exposure and implant migration among patients who received an unwrapped nonporous spherical implant versus an unwrapped porous spherical implant immediately after enucleation. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of a series of 258 patients who received either an unwrapped nonporous spherical implant (n = 68) or an unwrapped porous spherical implant (n = 190). Actuarial rates of migration of the implant and conjunctival dehiscence leading to implant exposure were computed. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients received an unwrapped nonporous implant (polymethylacrylate [PMMA]) and 190 patients received an unwrapped porous implant (139 hydroxyapatite [HA] and 51 porous polyethylene [Medpor]). Median follow-up duration in this study was 37.6 months. Implant exposure occurred in 1 of the 68 nonporous implant cases (1.5%) and in 4 of the 190 porous implant cases (2.1%). This difference is not statistically significant (P = 0.85). In contrast, clinically significant implant migration occurred substantially more frequently in the patients who received a nonporous implant. The cumulative actuarial probability of implant migration at 60 months was 15.5% for the nonporous implants versus 0.7% for the porous implants. This difference was statistically significant (P = 0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: Orbital implant migration occurred in a significantly greater proportion of patients who received a nonporous implant than in those who received a porous implant. Implant exposure occurred at a low rate that was not significantly different in the two subgroups.
Authors: M Reza Vagefi; Tristan F W McMullan; John R Burroughs; David K Isaacs; Angelo Tsirbas; George L White; Richard L Anderson; John D McCann Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Gian Luigi Zigiotti; Sonia Cavarretta; Mariachiara Morara; Sang Min Nam; Stefano Ranno; Francesco Pichi; Andrea Lembo; Stefano Lupo; Paolo Nucci; Alessandro Meduri Journal: ScientificWorldJournal Date: 2012-04-30
Authors: Annemarie Klingenstein; Aylin Garip-Kuebler; Daniel R Muth; Christoph Hintschich Journal: Int Ophthalmol Date: 2022-04-02 Impact factor: 2.029
Authors: Daphne L Mourits; Dyonne T Hartong; Machteld I Bosscha; Roel J H M Kloos; Annette C Moll Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-13 Impact factor: 3.240