Purchase this article with an account.
JunHyuk Son, EunYoung Cho, Areum Jeong, Sooncheol Cha, Sungbok Lee, JaeWook Yang; Clinical results of porous silicone orbital implants. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2017;58(8):5140.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
Fibrovascular ingrowth into the porous implant offers excellent movement of the prosthesis and at the same time diminishes the risk of infection, extrusion and displacement. Experimental porous silicone orbital implants demonstrated a comparable extent of fibrovascular ingrowth, compared to porous polyethylene implants in animal study. We evaluate the safety and efficacy of porous silicone implants.
Fourteen patients undergoing evisceration or secondary orbital implantation surgery received the porous silicone implant at three general hospitals from July 2015 to May 2016. Fourteen subjects were male and two were female. The mean age of subjects was 63.6 years (age range, 39~86). The mean follow up period was 11.3 months (5~17 months). Implant fibrovascular ingrowth was assessed by T1-weighted MR imaging after the intravenous administration of gadolinium-diethylenetriamine penta-acetic acid. For each patient, data was acquired regarding complications such as expose, migration, extrusion, orbital infection and inflammatory reaction.
Of the 9 patients undergoing MR imaging from 17 to 29 weeks after surgery, 6 had homogeneous enhancement throughout the implant (Grade IV). Two patients had foci of enhancement extending to the center of the implant (Grade III), and only one patient had peripheral foci of enhancement (Grade II).During the follow-up period, conjunctival erosion developed in 1 case, which was controlled by conservative management only. There were no postoperative complications such as implant exposure, migration, extrusion, orbital infection and inflammatory reaction.
Porous silicone orbital implants demonstrated a comparable results compared to previous porous implants study without complication. Therefore, this new porous silicone sphere implant may be a good candidate to substitute current porous implants at a lower cost.
This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2017 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Baltimore, MD, May 7-11, 2017.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only