Multipurpose Conical Orbital Implant in Evisceration

Amplitude of movements with conical or spherical implants in anophthalmic socket

PURPOSE

To evaluate the amplitude of movement in anophthalmic sockets reconstructed with conical or spherical orbital implants with and without an external ocular prosthesis (EOP), and whether the fornix depth could play a role.

METHODS

Prospective observational study involving unilateral anophthalmic sockets evaluated the amplitude of movement with conical (20 subjects) or spherical (16) non-porous orbital implants, with and without an EOP, having the contralateral eye as the control group. Standardized photographs were obtained in the four gaze directions and measurements were performed using the Image J software. The upper and lower fornix depths were measured using rulers.

RESULTS

Compared to the contralateral eye, the median movement amplitude without EOP was smaller with conical implants in supraduction (-0.88 mm, p=0.008), abduction (-2.26 mm, p<0.001) and adduction (-0.91 mm, p=0.008). Spherical implants had reduced movement only in abduction (-2.63 mm, p<0.001). Conical and spherical implants had similar amplitudes of movement in all versions, and were always smaller compared to the control. The median movement amplitude with the EOP was -3.05 mm (p=0.001) than without the EOP in abduction and -2.07 mm (p=0.020) in adduction, regardless of implant format. The fornix depth did not affect the orbital implants or EOP movement amplitude's median.

CONCLUSION

Conical and spherical implants provide similar amplitude of movement and fornix depth did not have an influence on it. The amplitude of movement was significantly limited compared to the contralateral eye and was even more reduced if the EOP was in place with conical or spherical implant formats.

Conical Biosilicate Implant for Volume Augmentation in Anophthalmic Sockets

The ideal implant for anophthalmic socket reconstruction has yet to be developed. Biosilicate, a highly bioactive glass-ceramic, has been used in the composition of conical implants, which were initially tested in rabbit orbits with excellent results. However, the use of this material and the conical shape of the implants require further study in the human anophthalmic socket. Thus, we propose the use of a new conical implant composed of Biosilicate for orbital volume augmentation in anophthalmic sockets. This prospective, randomized study included 45 patients receiving conical implants composed of either Biosilicate or polymethylmethacrylate (control). Patients were evaluated clinically before and 7, 30, 60, 120, and 180 days after implantation. Systemic evaluations, laboratory tests, and computed tomography of the orbits were performed preoperatively and 180 days postoperatively. Both groups had good outcomes with no significant infectious or inflammatory processes. Only 1 patient, in the Biosilicate group, had early implant extrusion. Laboratory tests were normal in both groups. Computed tomography scans showed that the implants in both groups were well positioned. The new conical implant composed of Biosilicate was successfully used for anophthalmic socket reconstruction. This implant may provide a good alternative to the only conical implant currently available on the market, which is composed of porous polyethylene.

Long-term Surgical Outcomes of the Multi-purpose Conical Porous Synthetic Orbital Implant

PURPOSE

We present clinical results of the use of the multipurpose conical porous synthetic orbital implant (MCOI) in surgical procedures of evisceration, enucleation, and secondary enucleation in ophthalmology patients.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of 59 eyes in which conical implants were used, including 36 cases of eviscerations, 11 enucleations, and 9 secondary enucleations. In all of the cases, the follow-up period was greater than six months between 2004 and 2013. The results focus on documenting surgical findings, as well as postoperative complications among patients.

RESULTS

Superior sulcus deformities were found in six eyes (10.2% of conical implant patients), and two eyes received additional surgical interventions to correct the deformities (3.4%). Blepharoptosis was found in four eyes (6.8%), two of which received upper eyelid blepharoplasty (3.4%). Fornix shortening was reported in only one eye (1.7%). Forty-one eyes had a satisfactory cosmetic appearance after the final prosthetic fitting of conical implants (69.5%). The most frequent postoperative complication was orbital implant exposure, which seemed to occur when the preoperative status of the conjunctiva, Tenon's capsule, and sclera preservation were poor in the eyes of the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a lower incidence of blepharoptosis and fornix shortening with the MCOI in comparison to spherical implants, while the incidence of orbital implant exposure was similar with the MCOI in comparison to other types of orbital implants. In addition, the MCOI may have advantages with respect to postoperative cosmetic outcomes.