OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to assess integration of porous polyethylene allografts in 37 anophthalmic sockets of retinoblastoma enucleations. DESIGN: A clinical review. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-four patients (19 female, 15 male) whose age when diagnosed with retinoblastoma ranged from 1 to 72 months participated. Sixteen patients had unilateral retinoblastoma and 18 had bilateral retinoblastoma. INTERVENTION: Enucleation (3 bilateral, 31 unilateral) with implantation of a porous polyethylene (PP) sphere (16-20 mm in diameter) was performed. Of the 37 spheres, 34 were primary implants and 3 were secondary implants. In the eight patients with postimplantation exposure, the PP implant had to be removed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data on eight sockets with exposed PP implant were measured. RESULTS: There were no implant extrusions, but conjunctival dehiscence-exposure occurred in eight patients (21.6%). In 3 of 37 sockets, the volume replacement was not good, and in 5 cases, fornices were too shallow to accommodate a well-fitting prosthesis. In all but one socket, the overall cosmesis was graded subjectively from acceptable (grade 2) to excellent (grade 3). CONCLUSIONS: Although the PP implant is a useful and a less-expensive alternative to hydroxyapatite in the porous matrix implant category, if conjunctival exposure takes place, the implant presents a serious management problem because of its nonresponsiveness to medical and surgical treatments.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to assess integration of porous polyethylene allografts in 37 anophthalmic sockets of retinoblastoma enucleations. DESIGN: A clinical review. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-four patients (19 female, 15 male) whose age when diagnosed with retinoblastoma ranged from 1 to 72 months participated. Sixteen patients had unilateral retinoblastoma and 18 had bilateral retinoblastoma. INTERVENTION: Enucleation (3 bilateral, 31 unilateral) with implantation of a porous polyethylene (PP) sphere (16-20 mm in diameter) was performed. Of the 37 spheres, 34 were primary implants and 3 were secondary implants. In the eight patients with postimplantation exposure, the PP implant had to be removed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data on eight sockets with exposed PP implant were measured. RESULTS: There were no implant extrusions, but conjunctival dehiscence-exposure occurred in eight patients (21.6%). In 3 of 37 sockets, the volume replacement was not good, and in 5 cases, fornices were too shallow to accommodate a well-fitting prosthesis. In all but one socket, the overall cosmesis was graded subjectively from acceptable (grade 2) to excellent (grade 3). CONCLUSIONS: Although the PP implant is a useful and a less-expensive alternative to hydroxyapatite in the porous matrix implant category, if conjunctival exposure takes place, the implant presents a serious management problem because of its nonresponsiveness to medical and surgical treatments.
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
Authors: Youn Joo Choi; Tae Wan Kim; Suzy Kim; Hokyung Choung; Min Joung Lee; Namju Kim; Sang In Khwarg; Young Suk Yu Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2018-04-16 Impact factor: 2.153