• Sean M Blaydon, Todd R Shepler, Russell W Neuhaus, William L White, and John W Shore.
• Texas Oculoplastic Consultants, Austin, Texas 78705-1022, USA.
• Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003 Sep 1; 19 (5): 364-71.

PurposeTo evaluate complications and risk factors associated with the placement of wrapped and unwrapped porous polyethylene (PP) spherical implants after evisceration, enucleation, or secondary implantation.MethodsA retrospective, interventional, noncomparative case series of consecutive cases of PP implant placement after anophthalmic socket surgery performed by three surgeons over a 5-year period. A PP spherical implant was placed in 133 patients, 61 women (2 bilaterally) and 72 men (1 bilaterally). There were 91 enucleations, 30 eviscerations, and 15 secondary implant placements. Sixty-six (48.5%) implants were wrapped prior to placement. Parameters evaluated included: age, sex, prior ocular surgery or radiation treatment, indications for surgery, procedure performed, size of PP sphere, material used to wrap the implant, and complications.ResultsA total of 17 of 136 (12.5%) cases had documented postoperative complications, with implant exposure being the most common. In 5 patients (3.7%), implant exposure developed: 1 after evisceration and 4 after primary enucleation. Three of the five exposures were small and resolved with either observation alone or in one case with surgical revision of the socket. In two cases, the exposures were large enough that removal of the implant was indicated, one after evisceration and the other after enucleation with placement of a wrapped PP sphere.ConclusionsOur series revealed no significant difference in exposure rate between wrapped and unwrapped PP sphere implants, nor was the exposure rate affected by whether an eye was eviscerated or enucleated.

19 keywords...

hide…