Exposure rates of wrapped and unwrapped orbital implants following enucleation

Tina Li, Joanne Shen, Mark T. Duffy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

59 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the complication rate of porous polyethylene orbital motility implants with solid acrylic implants following enucleation and identify possible risk factors. Methods: The authors retrospectively reviewed the charts of a total of 117 consecutive enucleations performed at the University of Illinois at Chicago between March 28, 1994, and May 28, 1999. Data obtained included patient demographics, surgical indication, implant type, attending surgeon, surgical technique, and any reported complications. The primary outcome was presence or absence of implant exposure at the final recorded visit. Results: Of the 117 identified cases, 29 were eliminated due to insufficient follow-up data. Of the 88 remaining cases, 48 patients received porous implants and 40 received solid acrylic implants. Implant exposure developed in four cases. All exposures occurred in unwrapped porous polyethylene implants (n=2) or porous polyethylene implants wrapped in absorbable material (n=2). All exposures occurred in patients younger than 18 years of age, and 75% occurred early after trauma-associated enucleation surgery. Conclusions: The exposure rate of porous polyethylene implants in this study (9%) was found to be comparable to published rates for hydroxyapatite implants. There were no exposures of unwrapped solid acrylic spheres. Unwrapped porous implants in pediatric patients or following trauma-related enucleation may represent an increased risk for postoperative implant exposure. Absorbable wrapping of porous implants may carry the same risk for exposure as no wrapping. Porous implants wrapped in durable material appear to be as safe as solid acrylic spheres.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)431-435
Number of pages5
JournalOphthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Volume17
Issue number6
StatePublished - 2001
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Orbital Implants
Polyethylene
Wounds and Injuries
Durapatite
Demography
Pediatrics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology
  • Surgery

Cite this

Exposure rates of wrapped and unwrapped orbital implants following enucleation. / Li, Tina; Shen, Joanne; Duffy, Mark T.

In: Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Vol. 17, No. 6, 2001, p. 431-435.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Li, Tina ; Shen, Joanne ; Duffy, Mark T. / Exposure rates of wrapped and unwrapped orbital implants following enucleation. In: Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 2001 ; Vol. 17, No. 6. pp. 431-435.
@article{b28f68d488ff4278b680d75ebb8bae01,
title = "Exposure rates of wrapped and unwrapped orbital implants following enucleation",
abstract = "Purpose: To compare the complication rate of porous polyethylene orbital motility implants with solid acrylic implants following enucleation and identify possible risk factors. Methods: The authors retrospectively reviewed the charts of a total of 117 consecutive enucleations performed at the University of Illinois at Chicago between March 28, 1994, and May 28, 1999. Data obtained included patient demographics, surgical indication, implant type, attending surgeon, surgical technique, and any reported complications. The primary outcome was presence or absence of implant exposure at the final recorded visit. Results: Of the 117 identified cases, 29 were eliminated due to insufficient follow-up data. Of the 88 remaining cases, 48 patients received porous implants and 40 received solid acrylic implants. Implant exposure developed in four cases. All exposures occurred in unwrapped porous polyethylene implants (n=2) or porous polyethylene implants wrapped in absorbable material (n=2). All exposures occurred in patients younger than 18 years of age, and 75{\%} occurred early after trauma-associated enucleation surgery. Conclusions: The exposure rate of porous polyethylene implants in this study (9{\%}) was found to be comparable to published rates for hydroxyapatite implants. There were no exposures of unwrapped solid acrylic spheres. Unwrapped porous implants in pediatric patients or following trauma-related enucleation may represent an increased risk for postoperative implant exposure. Absorbable wrapping of porous implants may carry the same risk for exposure as no wrapping. Porous implants wrapped in durable material appear to be as safe as solid acrylic spheres.",
author = "Tina Li and Joanne Shen and Duffy, {Mark T.}",
year = "2001",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "17",
pages = "431--435",
journal = "Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery",
issn = "0740-9303",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Exposure rates of wrapped and unwrapped orbital implants following enucleation

AU - Li, Tina

AU - Shen, Joanne

AU - Duffy, Mark T.

PY - 2001

Y1 - 2001

N2 - Purpose: To compare the complication rate of porous polyethylene orbital motility implants with solid acrylic implants following enucleation and identify possible risk factors. Methods: The authors retrospectively reviewed the charts of a total of 117 consecutive enucleations performed at the University of Illinois at Chicago between March 28, 1994, and May 28, 1999. Data obtained included patient demographics, surgical indication, implant type, attending surgeon, surgical technique, and any reported complications. The primary outcome was presence or absence of implant exposure at the final recorded visit. Results: Of the 117 identified cases, 29 were eliminated due to insufficient follow-up data. Of the 88 remaining cases, 48 patients received porous implants and 40 received solid acrylic implants. Implant exposure developed in four cases. All exposures occurred in unwrapped porous polyethylene implants (n=2) or porous polyethylene implants wrapped in absorbable material (n=2). All exposures occurred in patients younger than 18 years of age, and 75% occurred early after trauma-associated enucleation surgery. Conclusions: The exposure rate of porous polyethylene implants in this study (9%) was found to be comparable to published rates for hydroxyapatite implants. There were no exposures of unwrapped solid acrylic spheres. Unwrapped porous implants in pediatric patients or following trauma-related enucleation may represent an increased risk for postoperative implant exposure. Absorbable wrapping of porous implants may carry the same risk for exposure as no wrapping. Porous implants wrapped in durable material appear to be as safe as solid acrylic spheres.

AB - Purpose: To compare the complication rate of porous polyethylene orbital motility implants with solid acrylic implants following enucleation and identify possible risk factors. Methods: The authors retrospectively reviewed the charts of a total of 117 consecutive enucleations performed at the University of Illinois at Chicago between March 28, 1994, and May 28, 1999. Data obtained included patient demographics, surgical indication, implant type, attending surgeon, surgical technique, and any reported complications. The primary outcome was presence or absence of implant exposure at the final recorded visit. Results: Of the 117 identified cases, 29 were eliminated due to insufficient follow-up data. Of the 88 remaining cases, 48 patients received porous implants and 40 received solid acrylic implants. Implant exposure developed in four cases. All exposures occurred in unwrapped porous polyethylene implants (n=2) or porous polyethylene implants wrapped in absorbable material (n=2). All exposures occurred in patients younger than 18 years of age, and 75% occurred early after trauma-associated enucleation surgery. Conclusions: The exposure rate of porous polyethylene implants in this study (9%) was found to be comparable to published rates for hydroxyapatite implants. There were no exposures of unwrapped solid acrylic spheres. Unwrapped porous implants in pediatric patients or following trauma-related enucleation may represent an increased risk for postoperative implant exposure. Absorbable wrapping of porous implants may carry the same risk for exposure as no wrapping. Porous implants wrapped in durable material appear to be as safe as solid acrylic spheres.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035204153&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0035204153&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 11766024

AN - SCOPUS:0035204153

VL - 17

SP - 431

EP - 435

JO - Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

JF - Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

SN - 0740-9303

IS - 6

ER -