Abstract
Purpose: :
to access the efficacy and safety of integrated and non-integrated material orbital implants for treating the anophthalmic socket evaluating case series studies.
Methods: :
a review of the literature was conducted with no language restriction. Studies were obtained from the following sources: PUBMED, EMBASE and LILACS. Inclusion criteria were (a) case series design with more than 20 cases reported, (b) use of integrated and/or non-integrated orbital implants, (c) patients with anophthalmic socket and, (d) outcome reported as clinical efficacy and/or complications. Complications rates from each included study were quantified. Proportional meta-analysis was performed on both outcomes with a random-effects model. The 95% confidential intervals were calculated.
Results: :
the majority of the studies were about natural hydroxyapatite (HA) and porous polyethylene (PP) comparison. There was no statistically significant difference regarding implant extrusion and complication rates between HA and PP. However, there was a statistically significant difference favoring PP compared to bioceramic on implant exposure (2,6% vs. 12%). Although no statistically significant difference was found comparing HA versus both PP and bioceramic on implant exposure (5,4% vs. 2,6% and 12%, respectively).
Conclusions: :
PP and HA implants seem to have the same efficacious regarding the reduction of implant extrusions and complications in the anophthalmic socket reconstruction. The evidence found in this review shows that bioceramic implants have a high incidence of implant exposures compared to PP. Clinical trials are necessary to extend the knowledge on integrated and non-integrated orbital implants for treating the anophthalmic socket.
Keywords: clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: systems/equipment/techniques • orbit • wound healing