Osseointegrated Implants for Orbito-Facial Prostheses: Common Complications and Solutions.

PURPOSE: To evaluate anatomical and functional results of osseointegration with magnetic coupling for oculofacial prosthetic rehabilitation after exenteration. METHODS: This retrospective study included 11 consecutive patients who received orbital reconstruction and oculofacial prosthetic rehabilitation between September 2015 and October 2019. Patient demographics, surgical indications, previous treatment procedures, histopathologic features, and reconstructive procedures were recorded. RESULTS: The mean age was 37.81 ±â€Š23 years (range 5-78 years). The mean follow-up was 23.81 ±â€Š12 months (range 10-48 months). The principal diagnoses were squamous cell carcinoma of the eyelids (n = 2/11), mucoepidermoid carcinoma of the maxillary sinus (n = 2/11), rhabdomyosarcoma (n = 1/11), mucormycosis (n = 1/11), neurofibromatosis (n = 1/11), basosquamous carcinoma (n = 1/11), malign melanoma (n = 1/11), primitive neuroectodermal tumor (n = 1/11), and retinoblastoma (n = 1/11). Six of the patients were repaired by primary closure. Procedures performed to reconstruct the orbital cavity included split-thickness skin graft (n = 2/11), temporalis muscle flap (n = 2/11), and frontalis muscle flap (n = 1/11). Nine of the 11 patients who received orbital implants were successfully rehabilitated by epithesis. Postoperative complications included implant loss (n = 4/11), periprosthetic local infection (n = 3/11), and soft tissue overgrowth around the orbital prosthesis (n = 2/11). All patients had Straumann bone level implant (Basel, Switzerland) osseointegrated titanium implants (3.5 mm) placed in a 2-stage procedure over a span of 3 to 4 months with subsequent successful prosthesis fitting. CONCLUSION: The reconstructive methods following orbital exenteration, should be customized according to the patients' characteristics such as extension of the orbital defect, bone quality, and expectations to achieve satisfactory results.

Giant osteomas: Clinical results and surgical approach from ophthalmic point of view.

PURPOSE: To present clinical ocular manifestations, radiological features and surgical results of giant paranasal osteomas involving the orbit. DESIGN: Retrospective, interventional, case series. METHODS: The study included patients treated for giant paranasal osteoma involving the orbit. Total or subtotal excision of the tumor was performed via external approach. Clinical characteristics including presenting symptoms, radiologic investigation, histopathology and details of the surgery were recorded. RESULTS: Of the six patients included; four were male and two were female. Mean age was 46.8 years (range 12-70 years). Five patients had unilateral, one patient had bileteral disease. The presenting complaints included complete (n = 2/6) or partial (n = 4/6) limitation of eye movements depending on the location and size of the tumor, diplopia (n = 5/6), vision loss (n = 2/6) exophthalmos (n = 6/6) and reduced pupillary light reflex (n = 2/6). The presumed origin of the tumor was frontoethmoidal region (n = 2/6), frontal sinus (n = 3/6) and ethmoid sinus (n = 1/6). Total resection was achieved in three of the patients whereas partial resection was achieved in remaining three patients due to risk of incremental neurological damage. Mild ptosis was observed in all patients during the postoperative period (temporary, n = 4; permanent, n = 2). CONCLUSION: Despite the benign nature of osteomas, severe functional impairment including vision loss due to compression of the optic nerve and diplopia might occur in case of orbital involvement. Osteomas with an orbital extension > %50 of the bony orbit volume are more prone to cause irreversible visual loss. Surgical resection is still the mainstay of therapy.

Evaluation of Lacrimal Drainage Function in the Anophthalmic Socket by Dacryoscintigraphy.

PURPOSE: To investigate whether impaired lacrimal pump function is a possible cause of discharge in patients wearing an artificial eye compared with the remaining healthy eye. METHODS: Consecutive patients wearing unilateral ocular prosthesis for ≥6 months were included in this retrospective study. Excluded were any deformities of eyelids or nasal passage, socket complications such as entropion, ectropion, ptosis, infection, pyogenic granuloma, contracted socket, obstruction of nasolacrimal duct diagnosed with lacrimal irrigation and a difference greater than 2 mm in terms of protrusion between two eyes detected by Hertel exophthalmometry. Patients were asked to score the levels of tearing and mucopurulent discharge between 0 and 5 to assess lacrimal drainage function subjectively. Furthermore, dacryoscintigraphy was performed to assess the functional status of the lacrimal system objectively. RESULTS: Included were 32 subjects (12 females, 20 males; aged 32.94 ±â€Š17.62, range 13-78). Mean duration of prosthetic wearing 26.41 ±â€Š21.30 (6-72) months. The mean subjective scores of tearing and mucopurulent discharge were 1.56 ±â€Š1.67 and 1.94 ±â€Š1.63, respectively. The rate of functional stenosis was significantly higher in the anophthalmic socket side as compared to the healthy side (P = 0.002). The rates of a presac, preduct, and intraduct obstruction was notes as n = 9, n = 10, n = 1 and n = 0, n = 6, n = 2 in the anophthalmic side and the companion eye, respectively (P = 0.021). CONCLUSION: Compared to paired healthy eyes, the ocular prosthesis exhibited significantly higher rates of functional lacrimal duct obstruction, especially at the presac level. The alterations in orbital volume and tear film composition in addition to reduced corneal reflex blinking may lead to the failure of lacrimal pump function in artificial eyes.

Comparison of Three Different Techniques on the Movement of Implants After Evisceration.

PURPOSE: To compare the results of 3 evisceration techniques involving placement of an acrylic implant within the scleral shell without posterior sclerotomy (Group 1), posterior sclerotomy with placement of a porous implant within the intraconal space (Group 2) and posterior sclerotomy with placement of a acrylic implant within the intraconal space (Group 3) with respect to ocular mobility, implant complications and patient satisfaction. METHODS: Single-center, retrospective, interventional case series. A chart review of 72 patients undergoing evisceration between February 2013 and January 2018 was carried out. Thirty-five patients met the inclusion criteria having a normal or near normal size eye and at least 6 months follow-up. The horizontal movements of the implant and the artificial eye was measured by using a ruler. Data analyses were conducted using the Mann-Whitney U test for 2 independent samples. RESULTS: Neither infection nor prolapse of the implant had occurred in any of the patients. The mean implant sizes were 18 mm in Group 1, 20 mm in Group 2 and 20 mm in Group 3. Statistically, a significant difference was assessed between Group 1 and Group 2 in both nasal and temporal movement of the socket; nasal and temporal movement of the prosthesis. Statistically, a significant difference was assessed between Group 1 and Group 3 in both nasal and temporal movement of the socket; nasal and temporal movement of the prosthesis. However, there was no statistically significant difference between Group 2 and Group 3 in neither nasal and temporal movement of the socket nor nasal and temporal movement of the artificial eye. CONCLUSION: Group 1 showed the significantly better movement of both prosthesis and socket in adduction and abduction than Group 2 and 3. The likely explanation for this may be that preserving the scleral shell integrity allows more efficient transmission of muscle contraction to the socket and prosthesis.

Comparison of Medpor coated tear drainage tube versus silicon tear drainage tube in conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy: problems and solutions.

PURPOSE: This study aims at comparing two different types of drainage tubes in conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy, which are used for upper lacrimal system obstruction or damage, with respect to their respective postoperative problems and solutions. METHODS: Nineteen eyes of 17 patients who underwent conjunctivodacryocystorhinostomy (CDCR) or conjunctivorhinostomy (CR) surgery with a Medpor coated tear drainage tube or silicon tube placement between October, 2010, and February, 2014, were included in this retrospective comparative study. RESULTS: In the initial surgery, Medpor coated tear drainage tubes were used in 11 eyes by CDCR, whereas silicon tear drainage tubes were implanted into 2 eyes by CR and 6 eyes by CDCR. In group 1, proximal and distal obstructions developed postoperatively in 4 eyes, while 1 eye showed tube malposition and 3 eyes developed luminal obstruction by debris 3 times. In group 2, tube extrusion developed in 4 eyes, whereas tube malposition developed in 6 eyes and luminal obstruction by debris developed in 6 eyes at different times, for a total of 20 times. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, the most significant complication we observed in the use of silicon tear drainage tubes was tube extrusion,whereas the leading complication related to the use of Medpor coated tear drainage tubes was tube obstruction.