PURPOSE: To investigate the risks of implant exposure after a combined explant-implant procedure in patients with an exposed porous orbital implant. METHODS: Twenty-four consecutive patients who had a combined explant-implant procedure of an exposed hydroxyapatite (21) or porous polyethylene (3) orbital implant from January 2000 to February 2009 were included. The patient records were reviewed; patients were interviewed by telephone and invited for a clinical examination. Histopathological examination was carried out on the removed implants. Main outcome measures were: presence of exposure of the new implant or not, patient graded satisfaction with the cosmetic result, and presence of poor motility. RESULTS: None of the new implants became exposed or infected in the follow-up period of 25 [3-94] months (median [range]). The patients scored their satisfaction with the cosmetic result to a median score of 9 (range 5-10). Poor motility was present in six of 17 patients. Micro-organisms were identified in three removed implants and signs of inflammation were present in 20 removed implants. CONCLUSIONS: If a decision of implant removal has been made, it is safe to replace the implant at the same procedure in sockets without profound signs of infection. The procedure carries a possible risk of poor motility.
PURPOSE: To investigate the risks of implant exposure after a combined explant-implant procedure in patients with an exposed porous orbital implant. METHODS: Twenty-four consecutive patients who had a combined explant-implant procedure of an exposed hydroxyapatite (21) or porous polyethylene (3) orbital implant from January 2000 to February 2009 were included. The patient records were reviewed; patients were interviewed by telephone and invited for a clinical examination. Histopathological examination was carried out on the removed implants. Main outcome measures were: presence of exposure of the new implant or not, patient graded satisfaction with the cosmetic result, and presence of poor motility. RESULTS: None of the new implants became exposed or infected in the follow-up period of 25 [3-94] months (median [range]). The patients scored their satisfaction with the cosmetic result to a median score of 9 (range 5-10). Poor motility was present in six of 17 patients. Micro-organisms were identified in three removed implants and signs of inflammation were present in 20 removed implants. CONCLUSIONS: If a decision of implant removal has been made, it is safe to replace the implant at the same procedure in sockets without profound signs of infection. The procedure carries a possible risk of poor motility.