• A Alwitry, S West, J King, A J Foss, and L C Abercrombie.
• Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat Centre, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, United Kingdom. AmarAlwitry@aol.com
• Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007 Jan 1; 23 (1): 11-5.

PurposeTo present long-term follow-up data on enucleations and eviscerations carried out with placement of spherical porous polyethylene implants.MethodsA retrospective, interventional, noncomparative case series of all patients undergoing primary evisceration or enucleation surgery from one teaching hospital ophthalmology department.ResultsIn total, 106 cases were identified. Eighty patients (75.5%) underwent enucleation (group A) and 26 (24.5%) underwent evisceration (group B). Patient demographics were similar in both groups. Mean implant size in group A was 20.5 mm and 17.2 mm in group B. Mean follow-up in group A was 40 months (range, 12 to 80 months). Mean follow-up in group B was 63 months (range, 12 to 72 months). Six cases (7.5%) in group A had complications (excluding implant exposure), whereas one case (3.8%) in group B had a complication (excluding implant exposure). Five patients (6.3%) in group A had implant exposure; 14 cases (53.8%) of implant exposure occurred in group B.ConclusionsOur case series revealed a significantly higher incidence of implant exposure after evisceration than after enucleation. Our data suggest that enucleation should be the procedure of choice when removing an eye to minimize the risk of subsequent complications, particularly orbital implant exposure.

21 keywords...

hide…