Abstract
Purpose: :
To describe 9958 consecutive patients who underwent enucleation (9069) or evisceration (889) with or without intraorbital implant placement in Italy during the past 26 years and their complications.
Methods: :
Records of 9958 patients of the Italian most important ocularist service were reviewed retrospectively. Demographic data, ocular diagnosis, previous ophthalmic surgery and implant type and diameter were described in all patients, using a standardized format.
Results: :
We have considered a total of 9958 patients. 5829 consecutive patients underwent enucleation or evisceration from January 1979 to Dicember 1989 (group 1), and 4129 consecutive patients from January 1990 to September 2005 (group 2). In group 1, 5450 patients underwent enucleation, with no implants placement in 4649 cases (85.30%), placement of nonporous implants in 790 cases (14.50%), and placement of porous orbital implants in 11 cases (0.20%). 379 patients underwent evisceration, and no implant use was observed in 348 (91.82%) cases, nonporous implants in 30 cases (7.91%), and porous orbital implants in only one case (0.27%). In group 2, 3619 patients underwent enucleation, with no implants placement in 2253 (62.25%) cases, placement of nonporous alloplastic implants in 995 cases (27.50%), and placement of porous orbital implants in 371 cases (10.25%). 510 patients underwent evisceration, and no implant use was observed in 345 (67.65%) cases, nonporous implants in 96 cases (18.82%), and porous implants in 69 cases (13.82%).
Conclusions: :
Management of the anophthalmic socket continues to evolve. On the basis of the results of our survey, it appears to be a growing consensus towards the use of porous implants versus nonporous implants.
Keywords: anatomy • orbit • wound healing