1989Archives of OphthalmologyRequires access

Primary vs Delayed Implant in Evisceration

John B. Holds

Open publisher page 7 citations

Abstract

To the Editor. —We read with interest the recent article by Shore et al 1 concerning delayed primary wound closure. Although their idea of eviscerating a blind eye with endophthalmitis and delayed secondary implant after several days of local wound care is supported by current knowledge of wound dehiscence and bacterial counts, we find that an important argument has been neglected. In the preantibiotic era, Burch 2 pointed out that infection is a frequent cause of implant extrusion after evisceration. It is intuitive that the risk of implant infection and subsequent extrusion will be higher in an evisceration performed for endophthalmitis. Nonetheless, one must weigh the risks and benefits of placing an orbital implant at the time of the evisceration vs local wound care followed by a secondary implant some days later. In the case of local wound care followed by a secondary implant, the patient must endure several days

About this research paper

What this paper is about

To the Editor. —We read with interest the recent article by Shore et al 1 concerning delayed primary wound closure. Although their idea of eviscerating a blind eye with endophthalmitis and delayed secondary implant after several days of local wound care is supported by current knowledge of wound dehiscence and bacterial counts, we find that an important argument has been neglected. In the preantibiotic era, Burch 2 pointed out that infection is a frequent cause of implant extrusion after evisceration. It is intuitive that the risk of implant infection and subsequent extrusion will be higher in an evisceration performed for endophthalmitis. Nonetheless, one must weigh the risks and benefits of placing an orbital implant at the time of the evisceration vs local wound care followed by a secondary implant some days later. In the case of local wound care followed by a secondary implant, the patient must endure several days

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 7 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

To the Editor. —We read with interest the recent article by Shore et al 1 concerning delayed primary wound closure. Although their idea of eviscerating a blind eye with endophthalmitis and delayed secondary implant after several days of local wound care is supported by current knowledge of wound dehiscence and bacterial counts, we find that an important argument has been neglected. In the preantibiotic era, Burch 2 pointed out that infection is a frequent cause of implant extrusion after evisceration. It is intuitive that the risk of implant infection and subsequent extrusion will be higher in an evisceration performed for endophthalmitis. Nonetheless, one must weigh the risks and benefits of placing an orbital implant at the time of the evisceration vs local wound care followed by a secondary implant some days later. In the case of local wound care followed by a secondary implant, the patient must endure several days

Key concepts: Evisceration (ophthalmology), Medicine, Implant, Primary (astronomy), Surgery, Pathology, Alternative medicine, Astronomy

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Primary vs Delayed Implant in Evisceration — Research Paper | ScholarLens