Standard enucleation with aluminium oxide implant (bioceramic) covered with patient's sclera.

PURPOSE: We describe in our study a modified standard enucleation, using sclera harvested from the enucleated eye to cover the prosthesis in order to insert a large porous implant and to reduce postoperative complication rates in a phthisis globe. METHODS: We perform initially a standard enucleation. The porous implant (Bioceramic) is then covered only partially by the patient's sclera. The implant is inserted in the posterior Tenon's space with the scleral covering looking at front. All patients were followed at least for twelve months (average followup 16 months). RESULTS: We performed nineteen primary procedures (19 patients, 19 eyes, x M; x F) and secondary, to fill the orbital cavity in patients already operated by standard evisceration (7 patients, 7 eyes). There were no cases of implant extrusion. The orbital volume was well reintegrated. CONCLUSION: Our procedure was safe and effective. All patients had a good cosmetic result after final prosthetic fitting and we also achieved good prothesis mobility.

Enucleation with hydroxyapatite implantation versus evisceration plus scleral quadrisection and alloplastic implantation.

PURPOSE: To compare the motility and complications of enucleation with evisceration plus scleral quadrisection. METHODS: In a prospective study between January 2006 and June 2007, 50 patients underwent evisceration with scleral quadrisection and alloplastic implantation (group 1) and 50 patients underwent enucleation and hydroxyapatite implantation (group 2). Horizontal and vertical excursions of implants and complications such as exposure or extrusion and deep superior sulcus deformity were evaluated postoperatively. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up interval of 11.5 months for group 1 and 13.2 months for group 2, vertical measurements were approximately 20% less than horizontal measurements in both groups. The mean horizontal and vertical movements in group 2 were significantly less than in group 1 (p < 0.001). There was 1 case of small hydroxyapatite exposure in group 2 (1 in 50; 2%) and 2 cases of implant extrusion in group 1 (4%) (p = 0.50). Deep superior sulcus deformity was noted in 10 patients in group 1 (20%) and 7 patients in group 2 (14%) (p = 0.43). Analysis of covariance in both groups showed that age, gender, and follow-up interval were not predictors of movement in either direction (all p-values >0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Evisceration with scleral quadrisection and alloplatic sphere implantation can effectively substitute for a more extensive procedure such as enucleation in patients with painful blind eyes, cosmetically unacceptable blind eyes, and medically uncontrolled endophthalmitis. It provides rapidity, ease, and better implant excursion and lower cost of the implants compared with their porous counterparts.

Exaggerated postsurgical inflammation in a patient with insufficiently treated Addison disease.

A patient with Addison disease developed fever, pain, and marked orbital inflammation 3 days after evisceration in the setting of perforated corneal ulcer. He was treated for presumed orbital cellulitis without improvement. Increasing the corticosteroid dose for his Addison disease resulted in complete resolution of the inflammation.

Comparison of orbital prosthesis motility following enucleation or evisceration with sclerotomy with or without a motility coupling post in dogs.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate motility of silicone orbital implants and corneoscleral prostheses, with and without use of a motility coupling post (MCP) in dogs. ANIMALS STUDIED: Eighteen mixed-breed dogs. PROCEDURES: The motility of an orbital silicone implant and corneoscleral prosthesis after enucleation (n = 6), evisceration (n = 6), or use of a MCP with evisceration (n = 6) in dogs were compared. One eye from each dog had surgery whereas the opposite eye was used as a control. Clinical evaluations were performed three times a week. Histopathology of the orbital tissues was performed 8 and 12 weeks after surgery. RESULTS: Implant motility in dogs with evisceration (vertical movement [VM] 8.04 +/- 2.13; horizontal movement [HM] 11 +/- 3.05) and evisceration with MCP (VM 9.61 +/- 1.59); HM was significantly greater than the enucleation group (VM 0.51 +/- 0.5; HM 1.22 +/- 0.68) (P < 0.01). Prosthetic motility in dogs with evisceration with MCP was significantly greater than in dogs with evisceration; dogs with evisceration had significantly greater motility than dogs with enucleation (P < 0.01). No postoperative complications were observed in any of the groups. No significant abnormalities were noted on histopathology. CONCLUSIONS: MCP placement in silicone orbital implants significantly enhanced the prosthetic motility in dogs. This study supports the use of MCP in silicone orbital implants to enhance corneoscleral prosthesis motility and cosmetics in dogs.

Closure of sino-orbital fistula using glabellar rotation flap: A case report.

BACKGROUND: Sino-orbital fistulas (SOF) are a well-reported complication of orbitalexenteration and sinonasal carcinoma resection. Despite repair, however, complete fistula closure may be difficult. CASE: A 79 -years-old man had undergone total exenteration of right orbit for spreading sqamous cell carcinoma of conjunctiva. Subsequently he developed two large sinoorbitalfistulae medially to the ethmoid sinus wall of the orbit. Post- operatively good socket hygiene was maintained but the fistulae increased in size. At 3 month follow-up, closure of the fistulae using glabellar rotation advancement flap was done. The defects have remained closed at follow-up with excellent cosmetic results. There is no recurrence of fistula or malignancy till date. Patient was cosmetically rehabilitated with spectacle prosthesis. CONCLUSION: Glabellar rotation flap for closure of medially situated sino- orbital fistulae is a good option with excellent cosmetic result.

Persistent socket pain postenucleation and post evisceration: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To investigate causes, diagnostics and treatment modalities for persistent socket pain (PSP) after enucleation and evisceration. METHODS: A systematic search was undertaken in accordance with the PRISMA Statement, in PubMed, Embase.com and Thomson Reuters/Web of Science. We searched for relevant papers until the 28th of July 2016. Inclusion criteria were (1) patients with a history of enucleation or evisceration, (2) PSP, (3) report of the cause and/or used diagnostics and/or treatment modality, (4) full text in English, Dutch or Spanish language. Excluded were (1) review articles, (2) comments, and publications concerning, (3) nonhumans, (4) exenterated patients, (5) acute postoperative pain, or (6) periorbital pain without pain in the socket. Given the lack of high quality evidence from randomized controlled trials, we examined all available evidence from primary observational studies and assessed quality within this lower level of evidence. RESULTS: A total of 32 studies were included. Causes of PSP found were prosthesis-related (n = 5), dry socket (n = 2), trochleitis (n = 3), compression of the trigeminal nerve (n = 2), implant-related (n = unknown), inflammation (n = 5), surgery-related (n = 4), neuromas (n = 8), malignant tumours (n = 3), psychiatric/psychosocial (n = 2), phantom pain (n = 149), rarer entities (n = 3) or unknown (n = 14). Nonsurgical treatments suffice for conditions as trochleitis, prosthesis-related pain, dry socket and for phantom pain. Other causes of pain may require more invasive treatments such as implant removal. CONCLUSION: Careful history and examination can give some direction in the diagnostic procedure; however, PSP is probably multifactorial and the specific origin(s) may remain uncertain. Implant replacement can be an effective treatment. Studies to identifiy less invasive procedures are required.

UK national survey of enucleation, evisceration and orbital implant trends.

AIM: To evaluate current clinical practice in the UK in the management of the anophthalmic socket; choice of enucleation, evisceration, type of orbital implant, wrap, motility pegging and complications. METHODS: All consultant ophthalmologists in the UK were surveyed by postal questionnaire. Questions included their practice subspecialty and number of enucleations and eviscerations performed in 2003. Specific questions addressed choice of implant, wrap, motility pegging and complications. RESULTS: 456/896 (51%) consultants responded, of which 162 (35%) had a specific interest in oculoplastics, lacrimal, orbits or oncology. Only 243/456 (53%) did enucleations or eviscerations. 92% inserted an orbital implant after primary enucleation, 69% after non-endophthalmitis evisceration, whereas only 43% did so after evisceration for endophthalmitis (50% as a delayed procedure). 55% used porous orbital implants (porous polyethylene, hydroxyapatite or alumina) as their first choice and 42% used acrylic. Most implants inserted were spherical, sized 18-20 mm in diameter. 57% wrapped the implant after enucleation, using salvaged autogenous sclera (20%), donor sclera (28%) and synthetic Vicryl or Mersilene mesh (42%). A minority (7%) placed motility pegs in selected cases, usually as a secondary procedure. 14% of respondents reported implant exposure for each type of procedure and extrusion was reported by 4% after enucleation and 3% after evisceration. CONCLUSIONS: This survey highlights contemporary anophthalmic socket practice in the UK. Most surgeons use porous orbital implants with a synthetic wrap after enucleation and only few perform motility pegging.

Current indications and resultant complications of evisceration.

PURPOSE: Evisceration is an alternative treatment modality to enucleation for many end-stage eye diseases. No study has addressed the indications for evisceration of eyes in Saudi Arabia. The aim of this study was to determine the current clinical indications for evisceration in patients at a tertiary eye care center and attempt clinicopathological correlation. METHODS: Clinical records of patients who had undergone evisceration at a tertiary eye care center over a 4-year period were reviewed retrospectively. The patients' demographic data and clinical indications for evisceration were studied, and the results from histopathological findings were correlated with the clinical diagnosis. RESULTS: Evisceration of the eyes was performed in 187 patients. Males outnumbered females in a ratio of 1.3:1 (105 males and 82 females). Blind painful eye was the primary presenting symptom in 117 (62.6%) patients and unsightly eye in 38 (20.3%) patients. Clinical indications for evisceration included endophthalmitis in 85 (45.5%), phthisis bulbi in 38 (20.3%), traumatic injury in 36 (19.2%), and glaucoma in 14 (7.5%) patients. Sixty-three patients (33.7%) had prior history of cataract surgery, penetrating keratoplasty, glaucoma surgery, or retina surgery. Clinicopathological correlation was 100% in cases with definite clinical diagnosis of endophthalmitis. CONCLUSION: Blind painful eye, endophthalmitis, phthisis bulbi, severe traumatic injury, and glaucoma were the major indications for eviscerations in a tertiary eye care center.

Extreme Ophthalmomyiasis externa with simultaneous facial and scalp involvement.

BACKGROUND: Ophthalmomyiasis is a rare entity seen mainly in immunocompromised host with neglected wounds under poor hygienic conditions. CASE: We report a case of extreme ophthalmomyiasis with extensive facial and scalp involvement in an old rural inhabitant following evisceration. CONCLUSION: Proper wound care and personal hygiene are of paramount importance for good wound healing.

The clinical spectrum and treatment outcome of retinoblastoma in Indian children.

PURPOSE: To study the clinical spectrum and treatment outcome of retinoblastoma in Indian children. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed 488 eyes of 355 retinoblastoma patients treated at a tertiary care ophthalmic hospital in southern India during a 14-year period. RESULTS: Retinoblastoma involved one eye in 177 (50%) and both eyes in 178 (50%) patients. Mean age at presentation was 23.98 +/- 23.37.

Comparison after 10 years of two 100-patient cohorts operated on for eviscerations or enucleations.

PURPOSE: To compare the indications, surgical techniques, and operative outcome between two 100-patient populations operated on for evisceration or enucleation with a 10-year interval. METHODS: This retrospective study involved 100 patients operated on between 1987 and 1990 (Group 1) compared with another 100 patients operated on between 1996 and 2000 (Group 2). Group 1 included 64 males and 36 females, mean age 49 years; Group 2 included 60 males and 40 females, mean age 53. RESULTS: In Group 1, 19 eviscerations were performed, versus 55 in Group 2. In both groups, half of the indications for surgery were a painful blind eye. In Group 1, endophthalmia (23%) came second, whereas it was trauma (15%) in Group 2. Sixty-eight patients were implanted in Group 1 (silicone spheres 69%) versus 86 in Group 2 (hydroxyapatite spheres 69%). Twenty spheres (20%) were rejected in Group 1 versus 7% in Group 2. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of eviscerations increased in 10 years. The number of endophthalmitis-related operations decreased and trauma-related operations increased. The number of implantations increased with hydroxyapatite as the first choice material instead of silicone. This most likely contributed to reducing the number of rejections.

Sympathetic ophthalmia: enucleation or evisceration?

The purpose of this review is to find out the risk of sympathetic ophthalmia after evisceration and enucleation particularly in a case of penetrating ocular (non-surgical or surgical) injury and to know about the cosmetic outcome of evisceration and enucleation. Ophthalmologists around the world, whenever dealing with a case of penetrating ocular (non-surgical or surgical) injury, might thus be helped in deciding whether to keep the traumatized eye or remove it. And if they finally decide to remove it, they will be able to choose between evisceration and enucleation for the best cosmetic outcome, and to minimize the risk of sympathetic ophthalmia. The results of the review are the following. Enucleation is not found to be the best protective measure against development of sympathetic ophthalmia, as it was thought to be, since there are ample reports of sympathetic ophthalmia occurring not just after evisceration but also after enucleation. The cosmetic outcome of evisceration as opposed to enucleation is found to be better.

The eye amputated - consequences of eye amputation with emphasis on clinical aspects, phantom eye syndrome and quality of life.

In this thesis the term eye amputation (EA) covers the removing of an eye by: evisceration, enucleation and exenteration. Amputation of an eye is most frequently the end-stage in a complicated disease, or the primary treatment in trauma and neoplasm. In 2010 the literature is extensive due to knowledge about types of surgery, implants and surgical technique. However, not much is known about the time past surgery. THE PURPOSE OF THE PHD THESIS WAS: To identify the number of EA, the causative diagnosis and the indication for surgical removal of the eye, the chosen surgical technique and to evaluate a possible change in surgical technique in Denmark from 1996 until 2003 (paper I); To describe the phantom eye syndrome and its prevalence of visual hallucinations, phantom pain and phantom sensations (paper II); To characterise the quality of phantom eye pain, including its intensity and frequency among EA patients. We attempted to identify patients with increased risk of developing pain after EA and investigated if preoperative pain is a risk factor for a later development of phantom pain (paper III); In addition we wanted to investigate the health related quality of life, perceived stress, self rated health, job separation due to illness or disability and socio-economic position of the EA in comparison with the general Danish population (paper IV). THE STUDIES WERE BASED ON: Records on 431 EA patients, clinical ophthalmological examination and an interview study of 173 EA patients and a questionnaire answered by 120 EA patients. CONCLUSIONS: The most frequent indications for EA in Denmark were painful blind eye (37%) and neoplasm (34%). During the study period 1996-2003, the annual number of eye amputations was stable, but an increase in bulbar eviscerations was noticed. Orbital implants were used with an increasing tendency until 2003. The Phantom eye syndrome is frequent among EA patients. Visual hallucinations were described by 42% of the patients. The content were mainly elementary visual hallucinations, with white or colored light as a continuous sharp light or as moving dots. The most frequent triggers were darkness, closing of the eyes, fatigue and psychological stress. Fifty-four percent of the patients had visual hallucinations more than once a week. Ten patients were so visually disturbed that it interfered with their daily life. Approximately 23% of all EA experience phantom pain for several years after the surgery. Phantom pain was reported to be of three different qualities: (i) cutting, penetrating, gnawing or oppressive (n=19); (ii) radiating, zapping or shooting (n=8); (iii) superficial burning or stinging (n=5); or a mixture of these different pain qualities (n=7). The median intensity on a visual analogue scale, ranging from 0 to 100, was 36 [range: 1-89]. One-third of the patients experienced phantom pain every day. Chilliness, windy weather and psychological stress/fatigue were the most commonly reported triggers for pain. Factors associated with phantom pain were: ophthalmic pain before EA, the presence of implant and a patient reported high degree of conjunctival secretion. A common reason for EA is the presence of a painful blind eye. However, one third of these patients continue to have pain after the EA. Phantom sensations were present in 2% of the patients. The impact of an eye amputation is considerable. EA patients have poorer health related quality of life, poorer self-rated health and more perceived stress than does the general population. The largest differences in health related quality of life between the EA patients and the general population were related to role limitations due to emotional problems and mental health. Patients with the indication painful blind eye are having lower scores in all aspects of health related quality of life and perceived stress than patients with the indication neoplasm and trauma. The percentage of eye amputated which is divorced or separated was twice as high as in the general population. Furthermore, 25% retired or changed to part-time jobs due to eye disease and 39.5% stopped participating in leisure activities due to their EAs.

The risk of sympathetic ophthalmia following evisceration for penetrating eye injuries at Groote Schuur Hospital.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the incidence of sympathetic ophthalmia following evisceration for penetrating eye injuries and to assess whether evisceration is safe in this setting. METHODS: Data were obtained retrospectively from patients who were admitted to a tertiary hospital following penetrating ocular trauma over a 10-year period. RESULTS: A total of 1392 patients were included in the study. Of these, 1283 (99.4%) underwent surgery on admission (primary repair or primary removal of the globe). Of the surgical group 889 (64.3%) underwent primary repair, 491(35.5%) had primary eviscerations and three (0.2%) had primary enucleations. Secondary eviscerations were performed on 11 patients who had undergone primary repair. Two cases of sympathetic ophthalmia were identified in the non-surgical group and none in the surgical group. The incidence of sympathetic ophthalmia following penetrating trauma was 0.14%. CONCLUSION: The incidence of sympathetic ophthalmia was low, as found in previous studies. The lack of follow-up, as well as the statistically insufficient number of patients, did not provide conclusive proof that sympathetic ophthalmia does not occur after evisceration. It would appear, however, that evisceration after severe ocular trauma is an acceptable option with a low risk of sympathetic ophthalmia.

Sympathetic ophthalmia following evisceration: a rare case.

We describe a case of sympathetic ophthalmia following evisceration of a blind, painful, posttraumatic, glaucomatous eye. Although rare, this complication has been reported previously in the literature. We provide a brief review of sympathetic ophthalmia following evisceration and discuss the importance of a high degree of clinical suspicion and prompt treatment with high-dose systemic corticosteroids or other immunomodulators.

Orbital spread of conjunctival squamous cell carcinoma following evisceration: a reminder of the importance of thorough evaluation before and after destructive surgery.

Evisceration is a neglected surgery usually performed by the most junior ophthalmologists in unsalvageable eyes with panophthalmitis. It is universal knowledge that evisceration is contraindicated in eyes with intraocular malignancy. We report 2 patients who presented to us with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in eviscerated sockets. While one of them was diagnosed with SCC on histopathological examination of the eviscerated contents, the other had history suggestive of conjunctival SCC prior to evisceration. The second patient presented to us with complaints of poorly fitting prostheses. We conclude that it is imperative to rule out not just intraocular but also adnexal malignancy prior to evisceration, and these eyes should be regularly followed up and carefully examined if poor fitting of the prostheses develops.