Literature DB >> 9700731

A synthetic hydroxyapatite implant: the so-called counterfeit implant.

D R Jordan1, S M Munro, S Brownstein, S M Gilberg, S Z Grahovac.   

Abstract

This article evaluates three generations of synthetic hydroxyapatite implants in a rabbit model. Fourteen New Zealand white rabbits received synthetic hydroxyapatite orbital implants (first, second, and third generation). The rabbits underwent enucleation of one eye and then received a 12-mm synthetic hydroxyapatite implant wrapped in Vicryl (polygalactin 910; Ethicon, Inc.) mesh or sclera. Magnetic resonance imaging was conducted to assess host fibrovascularization of the implant 4 and 12 weeks after implantation. Animals were killed at each of these times and the implant was removed for histopathologic examination. Enhancement on magnetic resonance imaging and extent of fibrovascularization by histopathologic examination were assessed. The first-generation synthetic hydroxyapatite (FCI, Issy-Les-Moulineaux, France) was not 100% hydroxyapatite as is the Bio Eye (Integrated Orbital Implants, Inc., San Diego, CA, U.S.A.). It contained 3.2% calcium oxide. The implant was heavier and much less porous than the original Bio Eye implant. Central vascularization eventually occurred but was not extensive. The second-generation implant was more porous than the first, with rapid central vascularization to the center of the implant by 4 weeks. However, the second-generation implant was very fragile and crumbled easily. The second-generation synthetic implant was chemically identical to the original Bio Eye implant with no calcium oxide. The third-generation implant was more porous than its predecessors. When compared side by side with the Bio Eye, a difference in pore uniformity and interconnectivity seems apparent. However, an early extensive vascularization pattern to the center of the implant is seen histopathologically, similar to that with the Bio Eye. Magnetic resonance imaging also shows extensive enhancement as is the case with the Bio Eye. The third-generation synthetic implant is not fragile as was the second-generation implant, and chemically it is identical to the Bio Eye with no calcium oxide present. The third-generation implant is approximately half the price of the original Bio Eye implant.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9700731     DOI: 10.1097/00002341-199807000-00004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0740-9303            Impact factor:   1.746


  5 in total

1.  MR imaging of progressive enhancement of a bioceramic orbital prosthesis: an indicator of fibrovascular invasion.

Authors:  J D Barnwell; M Castillo
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2010-03-25       Impact factor: 3.825

2.  [Porous orbital implants].

Authors:  B Cleres; H W Meyer-Rüsenberg
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 1.059

Review 3.  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

Review 4.  Ocular implants-methods of ocular reconstruction following radical surgical interventions.

Authors:  Corina Teodora Catalu; Sânziana Luminiţa Istrate; Liliana Mary Voinea; Costin Mitulescu; Viorela Popescu; Ciuluvică Radu
Journal:  Rom J Ophthalmol       Date:  2018 Jan-Mar

5.  Hydroxyapatite ocular implant and non-integrated implants in eviscerated patients.

Authors:  S Gradinaru; V Popescu; C Leasu; S Pricopie; S Yasin; R Ciuluvica; E Ungureanu
Journal:  J Med Life       Date:  2015 Jan-Mar
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.