Conical Biosilicate Implant for Volume Augmentation in Anophthalmic Sockets

Clinical application of biomaterials in orbital implants: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Various materials have been proposed for reconstructing orbital fractures. The materials used must meet certain criteria to ensure their suitability for restoring the structure and function of the organ. These criteria include biocompatibility, ease of application, non-toxicity, hypo-allergenicity, and non-carcinogenicity. In this study, we systematically reviewed the studies regarding the biomaterials in orbital implants and their clinical application.

METHODS

A comprehensive search across various databases, including PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, was conducted until April 10th, 2023. After retrieving the search results and eliminating duplicates, final studies were included after screening through defined criteria. Human and animal studies assessing the clinical application of biomaterials in orbital implants were included. The quality of the case series and controlled intervention studies were evaluated using the NIH tool, and for animal studies, the risk of bias was assessed using SYRCLE's tool.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies were included according to defined criteria. These studies aimed to explore the clinical application of biomaterials and examine the associated complications in orbital implants.

CONCLUSION

We found that using biomaterials did not result in elevated intraocular pressure (IOP). However, we did observe certain complications, with infection, residual diplopia, and enophthalmos being the most frequently reported issues.

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.