Literature DB >> 20305504

The bioceramic implant: evaluation of implant exposures in 419 implants.

David R Jordan1, Stephen R Klapper, Steven M Gilberg, Jonathan J Dutton, Amy Wong, Louise Mawn.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the rate of exposure in the immediate 3-month postoperative follow-up period with the rate of exposure after the immediate postoperative period in 419 anophthalmic patients with a bioceramic (aluminum oxide) orbital implant.
METHODS: This is a retrospective, clinical case series of 419 patients who received a bioceramic orbital implant. All patients who presented to five oculofacial surgeons (D.J., S.G., J.D., S.K., L.M.) from January 1, 2000, to June 1, 2007, who received a bioceramic orbital implant and had a minimum of 3 months of follow-up were included in this study. The authors analyzed age, gender, type of surgery, implant size, peg system, follow-up duration, time of pegging, and problems encountered. The data from the patients with greater than 3 months of follow-up with exposure of the bioceramic implant are detailed in this report.
RESULTS: There were 353 patients followed for 3 to 96 months with an average of 30 months of follow-up (median 23 months). Implant exposure occurred in 32/353 bioceramic implants (9.1%). Six of the 32 (19%) exposures occurred during the 90-day postoperative period (average 2.1 months). Twenty-six (81%) exposures occurred outside of the 90-day postoperative period (average 27.5 months, range 4-82 months).
CONCLUSIONS: Implant exposures can occur anytime postimplant placement. This review discovered an implant exposure rate of 9.1%, with the majority of the exposures occurring after the postoperative follow-up period. Patients with porous orbital implants should be followed on a long-term basis to detect this complication.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20305504     DOI: 10.1097/IOP.0b013e3181b80c30

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

2.  The effect of cancer therapies on pediatric anophthalmic sockets.

Authors:  Yevgeniy Shildkrot; Maria Kirzhner; Barrett G Haik; Ibrahim Qaddoumi; Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo; Matthew W Wilson
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 12.079

3.  Indications and results in anophthalmic socket reconstruction using dermis-fat graft.

Authors:  Orapan Aryasit; Passorn Preechawai
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-05-04

4.  Risk factors for orbital implant exposure after evisceration: A case control study of 93 patients.

Authors:  Roshmi Gupta; Parvathi Hari; Bhawna Khurana; Anjali Kiran
Journal:  Indian J Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 1.848

5.  Use of extraocular muscle flaps in the correction of orbital implant exposure.

Authors:  Hsueh-Yen Chu; Yi-Lin Liao; Yueh-Ju Tsai; Yen-Chang Chu; Shu-Ya Wu; Lih Ma
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-09-25       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.