Oculopharyngeal Muscular Dystrophy Ptosis, Mueller's Muscle Involvement, and a Review of Management Over 34 Years.

PURPOSE: To review the management of the ptosis associated with oculopharyngeal muscular dystrophy (OPMD) from one author's experience over 34 years, demonstrate Mueller's muscle involvement in this disease, and how this impacts the preferred choice of surgery. METHODS: Retrospective, nonrandomized comparative case series. Forty patients with OPMD who underwent primary bilateral ptosis surgery through an anterior eyelid incision and had their Mueller's muscle biopsied (one side) and sent for histopathologic analysis were selected for chart review. The main outcome measure was the presence or absence of dystrophic changes in the biopsied Mueller's muscle. RESULTS: In 29/40 biopsies (72.5%), there were dystrophic changes and fatty infiltration of Mueller's muscle identified histopathologically. CONCLUSIONS: Mueller's muscle is involved in the dystrophic process more often than expected contributing to ptosis in the OPMD syndrome. A combined Mueller's-aponeurotic advancement is more effective at elevating the eyelid than simply advancing the aponeurosis when Mueller's is fatty infiltrated at the time of external levator advancement surgery in our experience. Management strategies for ptosis surgery in OPMD are reviewed. The age of onset, levator muscle function, previous ptosis repair, how debilitated the patient is with their disease process systemically, as well as the presence of other eye problems (e.g., dry eye, prior glaucoma filtering procedures, history of corneal surgery, laser refractive procedure) are important clinical considerations in patients with OPMD.

Unique orbital biphenotypic tumour with neuroendocrine and sebaceous carcinoma features.

A 60-year-old female presented with a large, left upper eyelid mass that had rapidly expanded in the 3 months prior to presentation. She had a presumed chalazion excised from the same area 1.5 years ago, but no pathology was investigated. On examination, she had a palpebral mass measuring 4.5 cm x 3.5 cm that abutted the globe with extensive conjunctival involvement. Neuroimaging demonstrated lesions concerning for parotid gland metastases. An incisional biopsy demonstrated synaptophysin-positive small blue cells concerning for neuroendocrine carcinoma. The patient underwent orbital exenteration with parotidectomy and radical neck dissection. The excised mass was found to have distinct neuroendocrine carcinoma cells intermingled with sebaceous carcinoma cells, a combination not previously reported.

Current indications for pegging in the anophthalmic socket: are there any?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To highlight the development, problems, and current status of coupling porous orbital implants to the overlying prosthetic eye. RECENT FINDINGS: Although increasing the risk of complications, pegging significantly contributes to prosthesis motility and satisfies the cosmetic expectations of some patients. Patients should be counseled regarding the increased risks in approximately one-third of individuals and that complications can occur even 10 years following implantation. SUMMARY: Although implant peg placement has declined dramatically over the past decade, a precise and meticulous technique under intravenous anesthesia in the appropriately selected patient can be a successful outpatient procedure. Fortunately, most problems are of a minor nature, and over 85% of patients are able to retain their pegs following proper management and timely intervention. Additional visits to the ophthalmic plastic surgeon or ocularist are required that may not be necessary if a peg had not been placed.

The bioceramic implant: evaluation of implant exposures in 419 implants.

PURPOSE: To compare the rate of exposure in the immediate 3-month postoperative follow-up period with the rate of exposure after the immediate postoperative period in 419 anophthalmic patients with a bioceramic (aluminum oxide) orbital implant. METHODS: This is a retrospective, clinical case series of 419 patients who received a bioceramic orbital implant. All patients who presented to five oculofacial surgeons (D.J., S.G., J.D., S.K., L.M.) from January 1, 2000, to June 1, 2007, who received a bioceramic orbital implant and had a minimum of 3 months of follow-up were included in this study. The authors analyzed age, gender, type of surgery, implant size, peg system, follow-up duration, time of pegging, and problems encountered. The data from the patients with greater than 3 months of follow-up with exposure of the bioceramic implant are detailed in this report. RESULTS: There were 353 patients followed for 3 to 96 months with an average of 30 months of follow-up (median 23 months). Implant exposure occurred in 32/353 bioceramic implants (9.1%). Six of the 32 (19%) exposures occurred during the 90-day postoperative period (average 2.1 months). Twenty-six (81%) exposures occurred outside of the 90-day postoperative period (average 27.5 months, range 4-82 months). CONCLUSIONS: Implant exposures can occur anytime postimplant placement. This review discovered an implant exposure rate of 9.1%, with the majority of the exposures occurring after the postoperative follow-up period. Patients with porous orbital implants should be followed on a long-term basis to detect this complication.

Management of cosmetic eyelid surgery complications.

There is a broad spectrum of complications that can occur following cosmetic eyelid surgery. The experienced eyelid surgeon should be able to avoid most serious complications through proper patient selection, a comprehensive preoperative assessment and surgical plan, meticulous surgical technique, and appropriate postoperative care. The aesthetic eyelid surgeon must counsel a patient contemplating blepharoplasty surgery regarding typical expectations including edema, eyelid numbness, dry eyes, and mild blurred vision. Patients must also be aware of the risks and the signs of serious complications such as infection, hematoma, or severe vision loss. Oculofacial surgeons must be capable of managing these adverse outcomes. The management of these urgent complications as well as other significant postoperative problems including diplopia, lagophthalmos, eyelid malposition, severe chemosis and edema, crease abnormalities, and wound dehiscence is outlined in this review.

The use of vicryl mesh in 200 porous orbital implants: a technique with few exposures.

PURPOSE: To report the results of a wrapping technique for porous orbital implants by using polyglactin 910 (Vicryl) mesh (Ethicon Inc., Somerville, NJ, U.S.A.). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 200 consecutive patients from one author's practice who received a polyglactin 910 mesh-wrapped porous orbital implant after enucleation or as a secondary implant between October 1, 1996, and April 15, 2001. We recorded potential problems that might be attributed to polyglactin 910 mesh both before pegging (excessive inflammatory response to the material, conjunctival thinning, and implant exposure) and after pegging (exposure of the implant around the sleeve, conjunctival thinning, and implant exposure other than adjacent to the peg). RESULTS: One hundred twenty-two men and 78 women underwent placement of a polyglactin 910 mesh-wrapped porous orbital implant. The average age at the time of implantation was 48.9 years (range, 11 to 85 years). The average follow-up interval in the 200 patients was 19.4 months (range, 2 to 80 months). Thirteen of the 200 patients had less than 6 months of follow-up, leaving 187 patients with an average follow-up of 20.5 months (range, 6 to 80 months). There were 76 primary enucleations and 124 secondary orbital implants. Thirty-seven patients received a Bio-Eye hydroxyapatite implant (HA) (Integrated Orbital Implants, San Diego, Calif), 97 received a synthetic FCI hydroxyapatite implant (FCI, Issy-Les-Moulineaux, France), and 66 received a Bioceramic implant (aluminum oxide-Al2O3) (FCI, Issy-Les-Moulineaux, France). One hundred fourteen patients (57%) underwent peg placement. The average time to pegging was 9.9 months (range, 6 to 16 months). Before pegging, 4 of 187 patients (2.1%) had implant exposure. Three of these exposures followed secondary orbital implant placement (2 Bio-Eye HA, 1 synthetic FCI3 HA) and one followed an enucleation (synthetic FCI3 HA). Two patients required a temporalis fascia graft and one required a scleral patch; the remaining defect closed spontaneously. One patient had conjunctival thinning 6 months after orbital implantation, which remained stable with no frank exposure for 36 months. No patient had excess socket inflammation. After peg placement, 3 additional patients had exposure of the implant around the peg site. There were no cases of conjunctival thinning or exposure of the implant other than adjacent to the peg site. CONCLUSIONS: Polyglactin 910 mesh is an excellent option as a wrapping material for porous orbital implants. It is simple to use, readily available, eliminates the need for donor tissue, does not require a second operative site, and it is less expensive than other currently available wrapping materials. We attribute our high success rate to our technique, which emphasizes proper placement of the implant within the Tenon space, suturing the extraocular muscles anterior to their normal anatomic sites, and meticulous closure of the Tenon capsule and conjunctiva in separate layers.

Hydroxyapatite orbital implant vascularization assessed by magnetic resonance imaging.

PURPOSE: To report hydroxyapatite (HA) implant enhancement patterns on magnetic resonance (MR) images at varying time intervals after implantation. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 45 consecutive patients(from one author's practice) who underwent an MR imaging study 2 to 157 months after HA orbital implant placement. Implant fibrovascular ingrowth was assessed by analyzing the extent of implant enhancement seen on MR imaging. RESULTS Of 21 patients undergoing gadolinium-DTPA T1-weighted MR imaging 2 to 7 weeks after HA placement, 15 had enhancement limited to the implant rim (Grade I or less). Five patients had peripheral foci of enhancement (Grade II), and one patient had foci of enhancement extending to the center of the implant (Grade III). MR images obtained 9 to 15 weeks after HA insertion in all 14 patients had some degree of central enhancement (Grade III) and 11 had homogeneous enhancement throughout the implant (Grade IV or V). Seven patients in the homogeneous group were believed to have particularly intense enhancement patterns (Grade V). Of the 10 patients undergoing MR imaging from 31 to 69 weeks after surgery, 5 had Grade III enhancement and 5 had Grade IV enhancement. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated consistent central HA orbital implant enhancement on MR imaging in the 9- to 15-week group and the >31-week postoperative group. HA orbital implant drilling and peg placement should be performed after central vascularization of the spherical implant has occurred. The results of this study support the principle of performing orbital implant drilling and peg placement at least 5 to 6 months after HA implant insertion.