PURPOSE: To present long-term follow-up data on enucleations and eviscerations carried out with placement of spherical porous polyethylene implants. METHODS: A retrospective, interventional, noncomparative case series of all patients undergoing primary evisceration or enucleation surgery from one teaching hospital ophthalmology department. RESULTS: In total, 106 cases were identified. Eighty patients (75.5%) underwent enucleation (group A) and 26 (24.5%) underwent evisceration (group B). Patient demographics were similar in both groups. Mean implant size in group A was 20.5 mm and 17.2 mm in group B. Mean follow-up in group A was 40 months (range, 12 to 80 months). Mean follow-up in group B was 63 months (range, 12 to 72 months). Six cases (7.5%) in group A had complications (excluding implant exposure), whereas one case (3.8%) in group B had a complication (excluding implant exposure). Five patients (6.3%) in group A had implant exposure; 14 cases (53.8%) of implant exposure occurred in group B. CONCLUSIONS: Our case series revealed a significantly higher incidence of implant exposure after evisceration than after enucleation. Our data suggest that enucleation should be the procedure of choice when removing an eye to minimize the risk of subsequent complications, particularly orbital implant exposure.
PURPOSE: To present long-term follow-up data on enucleations and eviscerations carried out with placement of spherical porous polyethylene implants. METHODS: A retrospective, interventional, noncomparative case series of all patients undergoing primary evisceration or enucleation surgery from one teaching hospital ophthalmology department. RESULTS: In total, 106 cases were identified. Eighty patients (75.5%) underwent enucleation (group A) and 26 (24.5%) underwent evisceration (group B). Patient demographics were similar in both groups. Mean implant size in group A was 20.5 mm and 17.2 mm in group B. Mean follow-up in group A was 40 months (range, 12 to 80 months). Mean follow-up in group B was 63 months (range, 12 to 72 months). Six cases (7.5%) in group A had complications (excluding implant exposure), whereas one case (3.8%) in group B had a complication (excluding implant exposure). Five patients (6.3%) in group A had implant exposure; 14 cases (53.8%) of implant exposure occurred in group B. CONCLUSIONS: Our case series revealed a significantly higher incidence of implant exposure after evisceration than after enucleation. Our data suggest that enucleation should be the procedure of choice when removing an eye to minimize the risk of subsequent complications, particularly orbital implant exposure.
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
Authors: Youn Joo Choi; Tae Wan Kim; Suzy Kim; Hokyung Choung; Min Joung Lee; Namju Kim; Sang In Khwarg; Young Suk Yu Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2018-04-16 Impact factor: 2.153