Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Primary replacement for the management of exposed orbital implant.
Curragh, David S; Kamalarajah, Srikandan; Lacey, Brendan; White, Stephen T; McNab, Alan A; Kalantzis, George; Dolman, Peter J; Selva, Dinesh; Rajak, Saul N.
Afiliação
  • Curragh DS; Department of Ophthalmology, Royal Victoria Hospital , Belfast , UK.
  • Kamalarajah S; Department of Ophthalmology, Royal Victoria Hospital , Belfast , UK.
  • Lacey B; Department of Ophthalmology, Royal Victoria Hospital , Belfast , UK.
  • White ST; Department of Ophthalmology, Royal Victoria Hospital , Belfast , UK.
  • McNab AA; Centre for Eye Research Australia and Department of Ophthalmology, University of Melbourne, and Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital , Melbourne , Australia.
  • Kalantzis G; Department of Ophthalmology, St. James' University Hospital, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust , Leeds , UK.
  • Dolman PJ; Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British Columbia , Vancouver , Canada.
  • Selva D; South Australian Institute of Ophthalmology, Royal Adelaide Hospital , Adelaide , Australia.
  • Rajak SN; The Sussex Eye Hospital, Brighton and Sussex University Hospital , Brighton , UK.
Orbit ; 38(6): 461-467, 2019 Dec.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30706748
ABSTRACT

Purpose:

We present a series of primary orbital implant replacement for cases of implant exposure to describe our experience of this one-staged surgical approach.

Methods:

This study reports on a one-stage technique which involved the removal of the exposed implant or dermis fat graft (DFG) and insertion of a secondary (replacement) in the same procedure, with a variety of materials, including autologous tissue. Re-exposure in a socket where a DFG was placed was defined as a new defect in the newly epithelialized conjunctiva or dehiscence of the dermis-conjunctiva junction. All cases of primary replacement for the management of exposed orbital implant, porous and non-porous, were included, even when there were clinical signs suggestive of infection. The primary outcome was the rate of re-exposure, requiring additional surgical procedures. Infection following primary replacement was a secondary outcome.

Results:

Seventy-eight patients had primary replacement for the management of an exposed orbital implant. 6.4% had re-exposure at a mean follow-up of 49.7 months (9.1% for ball implants and 4.5% for DFG). The rate of exposure was higher in those with prior signs of infection than those without (8% vs. 3.6%). Re-exposure occurred in 4.5% of cases with DFG implantation, 4.3% of cases with non-porous implants and in 20% of cases with porous implants.

Conclusion:

Primary replacement for management of exposed orbital implant, porous and non-porous, has a high rate of successful outcome even in cases with presumed or confirmed infection.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Órbita / Deiscência da Ferida Operatória / Implantação de Prótese / Implantes Orbitários Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Limite: Adolescent / Adult / Aged / Aged80 / Child / Child, preschool / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Orbit Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Reino Unido

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Órbita / Deiscência da Ferida Operatória / Implantação de Prótese / Implantes Orbitários Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Limite: Adolescent / Adult / Aged / Aged80 / Child / Child, preschool / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Orbit Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Reino Unido