Literature DB >> 16418664

Mersilene mesh versus sclera in wrapping hydroxyapatite orbital implants.

Abolfazl Kassaee1, Mohsen Bahmani Kashkouli, Mohammadreza Panjtanpanah, Ali Sadeghi, Ziaeddin Tabatabaee.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare Mersilene mesh versus sclera in wrapping hydroxyapatite orbital implants used in primary enucleation.
METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, interventional comparative case series, 60 eyes from 60 consecutive patients were included and randomly allocated for primary enucleation and either Mersilene mesh-wrapped hydroxyapatite (MHA) orbital implant (30 cases, 50%) or sclera-wrapped hydroxyapatite (SHA) orbital implant (30 cases, 50%) under general anesthesia. Complete socket examination was performed at 1 week, 1 month, and then every 3 months after surgery.
RESULTS: Mean age was not significantly different (P = 0.08) between patients with MHA (36.43 years) and SHA (28.50 years) orbital implants. The most common cause of enucleation was trauma in both groups (P = 0.09). Patients with MHA had significantly (P = 0.005) longer follow-up time (mean, 11.40 months) than those with SHA (mean, 9.40 months). No exposure was found at last follow-up in the MHA group, but one patient in the SHA group had a small exposure (1 x 1 mm) 1 month after surgery that was conservatively treated. There were no significant postoperative soft tissue complications in either group.
CONCLUSIONS: Sclera and Mersilene mesh could be used as a wrapping material for hydroxyapatite orbital implants without significant complications. Absence of disease transmission, low cost, and availability are the main advantages of Mersilene mesh.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16418664     DOI: 10.1097/01.iop.0000192633.86564.be

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


  4 in total

1.  [Porous orbital implants].

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

Review 2.  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

3.  [Motility and lid changes with coralline hydroxyapatite orbital implants and cryolite glass ocular prostheses].

Authors:  R Thiesmann
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 1.059

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

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.