Literature DB >> 18030118

Comparison of vascularization of Medpor and Medpor-Plus orbital implants: a prospective, randomized study.

Milind N Naik1, Ramesh K Murthy, Santosh G Honavar.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare vascularization of porous polyethylene (Medpor) and porous polyethylene with synthetic bone graft particulate (Medpor-Plus) orbital implants following enucleation.
METHODS: Prospective, randomized study involving 10 patients. A standard enucleation procedure was performed, and each patient was randomized to receive either Medpor or Medpor-Plus orbital implant with anterior scleral cap technique. Gadolinium-enhanced, 3-Tesla MRI was performed at 1.5 months, 3 months, and 4.5 months following surgery. Implant vascularization was calculated in axial, coronal, and sagittal planes with manual planimetric method using postcontrast T1-weighted Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine images.
RESULTS: The mean area of implant vascularization at 1.5 months, 3 months, and 4.5 months for Medpor implants was 58%, 70%, and 75%, respectively, and for Medpor-Plus implants was 69%, 76%, and 85%, respectively. The mean vascularization of Medpor-Plus implants was more than Medpor implants at 1.5 months (p = 0.008), 3 months (p = 0.09), and 4.5 months (p = 0.003). The difference between the 2 groups assessed by repeated measures analysis of variance was statistically significant (p < 0.0001). During the mean follow-up of 36.7 months (range, 18-43 months), 1 patient in the Medpor group had implant exposure that responded to scleral patch graft.
CONCLUSIONS: Implant vascularization is faster with Medpor-Plus implants compared with Medpor implants when assessed by a planimetric method using 3 Tesla MRI. The addition of synthetic bone graft particulate (Novabone) to porous polyethylene may enhance implant vascularization.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18030118     DOI: 10.1097/IOP.0b013e318158ec8e

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


  5 in total

Review 1.  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

Review 2.  Bioactive Glasses: Where Are We and Where Are We Going?

Authors:  Francesco Baino; Sepideh Hamzehlou; Saeid Kargozar
Journal:  J Funct Biomater       Date:  2018-03-19

Review 3.  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

Review 4.  Bioceramics and Scaffolds: A Winning Combination for Tissue Engineering.

Authors:  Francesco Baino; Giorgia Novajra; Chiara Vitale-Brovarone
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2015-12-17

5.  In vivo tissue response and durability of five novel synthetic polymers in a rabbit model.

Authors:  E Sahin; C Cingi; G Eskiizmir; N Altintoprak; A Calli; C Calli; I Yilgör; E Yilgör
Journal:  Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital       Date:  2016-04-29       Impact factor: 2.124

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.