2007Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive SurgeryRequires access

Long-term Follow-up of Porous Polyethylene Spherical Implants After Enucleation and Evisceration

Amar Alwitry, Stephen C. West, J King, A. Foss, Lorraine Abercrombie

Open publisher page 77 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE: To present long-term follow-up data on enucleations and eviscerations carried out with placement of spherical porous polyethylene implants. METHODS: A retrospective, interventional, noncomparative case series of all patients undergoing primary evisceration or enucleation surgery from one teaching hospital ophthalmology department. RESULTS: In total, 106 cases were identified. Eighty patients (75.5%) underwent enucleation (group A) and 26 (24.5%) underwent evisceration (group B). Patient demographics were similar in both groups. Mean implant size in group A was 20.5 mm and 17.2 mm in group B. Mean follow-up in group A was 40 months (range, 12 to 80 months). Mean follow-up in group B was 63 months (range, 12 to 72 months). Six cases (7.5%) in group A had complications (excluding implant exposure), whereas one case (3.8%) in group B had a complication (excluding implant exposure). Five patients (6.3%) in group A had implant exposure; 14 cases (53.8%) of implant exposure occurred in group B. CONCLUSIONS: Our case series revealed a significantly higher incidence of implant exposure after evisceration than after enucleation. Our data suggest that enucleation should be the procedure of choice when removing an eye to minimize the risk of subsequent complications, particularly orbital implant exposure.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

PURPOSE: To present long-term follow-up data on enucleations and eviscerations carried out with placement of spherical porous polyethylene implants. METHODS: A retrospective, interventional, noncomparative case series of all patients undergoing primary evisceration or enucleation surgery from one teaching hospital ophthalmology department. RESULTS: In total, 106 cases were identified. Eighty patients (75.5%) underwent enucleation (group A) and 26 (24.5%) underwent evisceration (group B). Patient demographics were similar in both groups. Mean implant size in group A was 20.5 mm and 17.2 mm in group B. Mean follow-up in group A was 40 months (range, 12 to 80 months). Mean follow-up in group B was 63 months (range, 12 to 72 months). Six cases (7.5%) in group A had complications (excluding implant exposure), whereas one case (3.8%) in group B had a complication (excluding implant exposure). Five patients (6.3%) in group A had implant exposure; 14 cases (53.8%) of implant exposure occurred in group B. CONCLUSIONS: Our case series revealed a significantly higher incidence of implant exposure after evisceration than after enucleation. Our data suggest that enucleation should be the procedure of choice when removing an eye to minimize the risk of subsequent complications, particularly orbital implant exposure.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 77 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

PURPOSE: To present long-term follow-up data on enucleations and eviscerations carried out with placement of spherical porous polyethylene implants. METHODS: A retrospective, interventional, noncomparative case series of all patients undergoing primary evisceration or enucleation surgery from one teaching hospital ophthalmology department. RESULTS: In total, 106 cases were identified. Eighty patients (75.5%) underwent enucleation (group A) and 26 (24.5%) underwent evisceration (group B). Patient demographics were similar in both groups. Mean implant size in group A was 20.5 mm and 17.2 mm in group B. Mean follow-up in group A was 40 months (range, 12 to 80 months). Mean follow-up in group B was 63 months (range, 12 to 72 months). Six cases (7.5%) in group A had complications (excluding implant exposure), whereas one case (3.8%) in group B had a complication (excluding implant exposure). Five patients (6.3%) in group A had implant exposure; 14 cases (53.8%) of implant exposure occurred in group B. CONCLUSIONS: Our case series revealed a significantly higher incidence of implant exposure after evisceration than after enucleation. Our data suggest that enucleation should be the procedure of choice when removing an eye to minimize the risk of subsequent complications, particularly orbital implant exposure.

Key concepts: Evisceration (ophthalmology), Enucleation, Medicine, Implant, Surgery, Eye Enucleation, Sclera, Demographics

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Long-term Follow-up of Porous Polyethylene Spherical Implants After Enucleation and Evisceration — Research Paper | ScholarLens