Factors Associated with Orbital Implant Exposure or Extrusion after Enucleation or Evisceration in Chiang Mai University Hospital
Abstract
Abstract
Objective: To determine the factors that can be associated with orbital implant exposure or extrusion
after enucleation or evisceration in patients who came for treatment in Chiang Mai University Hospital.
Methods: Retrospective review of medical records with diagnoses of orbital implant exposure or extrusion
between January 2009 and December 2015.
Results: Orbital implant exposure was slightly predominant in evisceration (16 in 26 sockets, 61.5%),
while orbital implant extrusion was mainly seen in enucleation (13 in 17 sockets, 76.5%). Causes that led
to evisceration or enucleation were most commonly infection (18 in 43 sockets, 41.9%) and trauma (11 in
43 sockets, 25.6%). Glass implants had the highest percentage of implant complications (39 in 43 sockets,
90.7%) of implant materials. The most commonly used sizes of orbital implants were No.16 (32.6%) and
No.18 (32.6%), and the most common type of suture was combined polyglactin (Vicryl®) with polyester
(SurgidacTM) (22 in 43 sockets, 51.2%). Orbital implant exposure or extrusion occurred mainly in operations
performed by residents of ophthalmology (28 in 43 sockets, 65%).
Conclusion: Orbital implant extrusions in enucleation occurred more frequently than in evisceration, but orbital implant exposure occurred slightly more frequently in evisceration. Glass implant materials are presumed to have more implant complications than other materials. The most common orbital implant sizes were No. 16 and No. 18. The suture type used most commonly was combined polyglactin with polyester.
References
Viswanathan P, Sagoo MS, Olver JM. UK national survey of enucleation, evisceration and orbital implant trends. Br J Ophthalmol 2007;91:616-9.
Aryasit O. Indications for enucleation and evisceration. Songkla Med J 2012;30:115-21.
Custer PL, Kennedy RH, Woog JJ, Kaltreider SA, Meyer DR. Orbital Implants in enucleation surgery: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.
Ophthalmology 2003;110:2054-61.
Moshfeghi DM, Moshfeghi AA, Finger PT. Enucleation. Surv Ophthalmol 2000;44:277-301.
Oestreicher JH, Liu E, Berkowitz M. Complications of hydroxyapatite orbital implants. A review of 100 consecutive cases and a comparison of Dexon
mesh (polyglycolic acid) with scleral wrapping. Ophthalmology 1997;104:324-9.
Sami D, Young S, Petersen R. Perspective on orbital enucleation implants. Surv Ophthalmol 2007;52: 244-65.
Yazici B, Akova B, Sanli O. Complications of primary placement of motility post in porous polyethylene implants during enucleation. Am J Ophthalmol 2007;
:828-34.
Wang JK, Liao SL, Lai PC, Lin LL. Prevention of exposure of porous orbital implants following enucleation. Am J Ophthalmol 2007;143:61-7.
Chalasani R, Poole-Warren L, R. Conway RM, Ben-Nissan B. Porous orbital implants in enucleation: a systematic review. Surv Ophthalmol 2007;52:145-55.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
The Thai Journal of Ophthalmology (TJO) is a peer-reviewed, scientific journal published biannually for the Royal College of Ophthalmologists of Thailand. The objectives of the journal is to provide up to date scientific knowledge in the field of ophthalmology, provide ophthalmologists with continuing education, promote cooperation, and sharing of opinion among readers.
The copyright of the published article belongs to the Thai Journal of Ophthalmology. However the content, ideas and the opinions in the article are from the author(s). The editorial board does not have to agree with the authors’ ideas and opinions.
The authors or readers may contact the editorial board via email at admin@rcopt.org.
