March 2012
Volume 53, Issue 14
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   March 2012
Integrated And Non-integrated Orbital Implants For Treating The Anophthalmic Socket: A Meta-analysis Of Case Series Studies
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Silvana A. Schellini
    Ophthalmology, Faculdade Medicina Botucatu, Botucatu, Brazil
  • Eliane C. Jorge
    Ophthalmology, Faculdade Medicina Botucatu, Botucatu, Brazil
  • Roberta L. Sousa
    Ophthalmology, Faculdade Medicina Botucatu, Botucatu, Brazil
  • Regina ElDib
    Ophthalmology, Faculdade Medicina Botucatu, Botucatu, Brazil
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  Silvana A. Schellini, None; Eliane C. Jorge, None; Roberta L. Sousa, None; Regina ElDib, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  Fundação de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo - Brazil
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science March 2012, Vol.53, 1467. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Silvana A. Schellini, Eliane C. Jorge, Roberta L. Sousa, Regina ElDib; Integrated And Non-integrated Orbital Implants For Treating The Anophthalmic Socket: A Meta-analysis Of Case Series Studies. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2012;53(14):1467.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
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 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×