| Literature DB >> 28243018 |
Livia Teo1, Young Jun Woo2, Dong Kyu Kim3, Chang Yeom Kim2, Jin Sook Yoon2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We describe our experience with the Permacol graft in anophthalmic socket reconstruction, and compare it to the autologous buccal mucosal graft, emphasizing the postoperative vascularization and contraction of each graft.Entities:
Keywords: Acellular dermis; Anophthalmos; Mouth mucosa
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28243018 PMCID: PMC5327181 DOI: 10.3341/kjo.2017.31.1.9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Korean J Ophthalmol ISSN: 1011-8942
Fig. 1The surgical procedure using the Permacol implant in anophthalmic socket reconstruction. (A) Intraoperative appearance of Permacol implant. The implant edge is sutured to the conjunctival edge. (B) External appearance of anophthalmic socket with fornix deepening sutures and retinal bolsters in place. (C) Appearance of graft at 1 week postoperatively. (D) Appearance of graft at 1 month postoperatively with superficial vascularization.
Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients in the Permacol group
OD = right eye; OS = left eye; F = female; N = prosthesis wear impossible; Y = prosthesis wear possible; M = male; CM = congenital microphthalmia.
Comparison of clinical variables between Permacol and buccal mucosa groups
Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation or number (%).
Fig. 2Representative patients in preoperative (left) and postoperative (right) photographs, who underwent reconstructive surgery with the Permacol graft. Photographs of adult (A,B) and pediatric (C,D) anophthalmic socket patients.
Fig. 3Conjunctivalization of the Permacol graft. (A) Good outcomes showing complete vascularization of the Permacol graft. (B) Poor vascularization of the Permacol graft at 8 months postoperatively, showing unvascularized islands.
Fig. 4Comparison of preoperative (preop) and postoperative (postop) fornix depth in anophthalmic socket patients receiving Permacol and undergoing buccal mucosal graft reconstructive surgery. *p < 0.05, both groups.