INTRODUCTION: To report the results of post-traumatic enophthalmos/hypophthalmos correction with high-density porous polyethylene wedge implants in seeing eyes. METHODS: This is an interventional case series of 25 patients (25 eyes) with post-traumatic enophthalmos and hypophthalmos, who underwent orbital reconstruction to correct the enophthalmos and hypophthalmos using Medpor® wedge implant. The aim was an overcorrection of 1 mm in comparison to the other eye, intra-operatively. If needed, trimming of the wedge implant or adding Medpor® sheets were used to achieve the goal. Success was defined as achieving the globe position within 1 mm of the other eye in the last follow-up. Improvement and failure were considered as correction outside the success range of 1 mm and no change in the amount of enophthalmos/hypophthalmos, respectively. RESULTS: Patients were followed for at least 6 months (mean= 12.66, SD= 12.32). Success, improvement and failure of enophthalmos correction were: 58.3% (14/24), 37.5% (9/24) and 1 (1/24, 4.1%), respectively. Success, improvement and failure of hypophthalmos correction were 73.68% (14/19), 15.78% (3/19) and 5.26% (1/19), respectively. There was no significant difference between the success rate of enophthalmos versus hypophthalmos correction (P= 0.8). Results of 1-month follow up change in enophthalmos and hypophthalmos significantly correlated (r= 0.92, P= 0.000) with the change recorded at last follow up. CONCLUSIONS: Porous polyethylene wedge implants are useful and safe in correction of enophthalmos and hypoglobus in seeing eyes. Appropriately positioned implant yields no significant difference in correction of enophthalmos versus hypophthalmos.
INTRODUCTION: To report the results of post-traumatic enophthalmos/hypophthalmos correction with high-density porous polyethylene wedge implants in seeing eyes. METHODS: This is an interventional case series of 25 patients (25 eyes) with post-traumatic enophthalmos and hypophthalmos, who underwent orbital reconstruction to correct the enophthalmos and hypophthalmos using Medpor® wedge implant. The aim was an overcorrection of 1 mm in comparison to the other eye, intra-operatively. If needed, trimming of the wedge implant or adding Medpor® sheets were used to achieve the goal. Success was defined as achieving the globe position within 1 mm of the other eye in the last follow-up. Improvement and failure were considered as correction outside the success range of 1 mm and no change in the amount of enophthalmos/hypophthalmos, respectively. RESULTS:Patients were followed for at least 6 months (mean= 12.66, SD= 12.32). Success, improvement and failure of enophthalmos correction were: 58.3% (14/24), 37.5% (9/24) and 1 (1/24, 4.1%), respectively. Success, improvement and failure of hypophthalmos correction were 73.68% (14/19), 15.78% (3/19) and 5.26% (1/19), respectively. There was no significant difference between the success rate of enophthalmos versus hypophthalmos correction (P= 0.8). Results of 1-month follow up change in enophthalmos and hypophthalmos significantly correlated (r= 0.92, P= 0.000) with the change recorded at last follow up. CONCLUSIONS: Porous polyethylene wedge implants are useful and safe in correction of enophthalmos and hypoglobus in seeing eyes. Appropriately positioned implant yields no significant difference in correction of enophthalmos versus hypophthalmos.