Literature DB >> 17355854

Porous orbital implants in enucleation: a systematic review.

Rajeev Chalasani1, Laura Poole-Warren, R Max Conway, Besim Ben-Nissan.   

Abstract

Orbital implants have been used for cosmesis following surgical removal of the eyeball, or enucleation, for over a century. Implant design has progressed significantly in recent years with the use of porous devices, with the theoretical advantages of reduced complications and improved cosmesis. However, in some cases the theoretical benefits have not fully translated into clinical results. In this article the use of orbital implants in enucleation, with a particular focus on the newer porous biomaterials that have gained prominence over the last 15 years, is reviewed. Specific factors identified as affecting the performance of porous orbital implants include the material used, pore size, and morphology. Mechanical factors have received little consideration in the past and may form a basis for the use of higher compliance porous materials in the future. Of the porous materials in use, current clinical evidence is not sufficient to suggest either that porous implants are superior to non-porous implants, or that one material is more suited to the application than another. Future developments in this field require randomized controlled clinical trials with extensive follow-up as complications may not become evident until over 5 years post-implantation.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17355854     DOI: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2006.12.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surv Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0039-6257            Impact factor:   6.048


  16 in total

1.  Comparison of experimental porous silicone implants and porous silicone implants.

Authors:  JunHyuk Son; Chang-sik Kim; JaeWook Yang
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-12-28       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  Unexpected ¹⁸F-FDG uptake in an ocular prosthesis.

Authors:  Elgin Ozkan; Mine Araz; Cigdem Soydal; Gulseren Aras
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2012-06-16       Impact factor: 9.236

3.  Long-Term Follow-up of a Tessier Number 5 Facial Cleft.

Authors:  Ahmed M Afifi; Risal Djohan; Walter Sweeney; Susan Brooks; Jarred Connolly; Chad R Gordon; Frank A Papay; James E Zins
Journal:  Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr       Date:  2011-03

4.  Autologous sclera-muscle flaps technique in evisceration with hydroxyapatite implantation.

Authors:  Ying Zhu; Hong Zhang; Yin-Wei Song; Jing-Min Guo; Xiao-Lan Xu; Jun-Ming Wang
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-08-18       Impact factor: 1.779

5.  Long-term Surgical Outcomes of the Multi-purpose Conical Porous Synthetic Orbital Implant.

Authors:  Min-Ji Kang; Su-Kyung Jung; Won-Kyung Cho; Ji-Sun Paik; Suk-Woo Yang
Journal:  Korean J Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-09-22

6.  Porous Hydroxyapatite and Aluminium-Oxide Ceramic Orbital Implant Evaluation Using CBCT Scanning: A Method for In Vivo Porous Structure Evaluation and Monitoring.

Authors:  Olga Lukáts; Péter Bujtár; George K Sándor; József Barabás
Journal:  Int J Biomater       Date:  2012-02-28

Review 7.  Current concepts of ocular adnexal surgery.

Authors:  Maria Borrelli; Gerd Geerling
Journal:  GMS Interdiscip Plast Reconstr Surg DGPW       Date:  2013-02-27

Review 8.  Nanotubular surface modification of metallic implants via electrochemical anodization technique.

Authors:  Lu-Ning Wang; Ming Jin; Yudong Zheng; Yueping Guan; Xin Lu; Jing-Li Luo
Journal:  Int J Nanomedicine       Date:  2014-09-17

9.  Chronic Orbital Inflammation Associated to Hydroxyapatite Implants in Anophthalmic Sockets.

Authors:  Alicia Galindo-Ferreiro; Sahar M Elkhamary; Azza Maktabi; Alberto Galvez-Ruiz; Silvana Artioli Schellini
Journal:  Case Rep Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-12-21

10.  Nanoscale Topographical Characterization of Orbital Implant Materials.

Authors:  Marco Salerno; Andrea Reverberi; Francesco Baino
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2018-04-24       Impact factor: 3.623

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.