羟基磷灰石义眼台眶内植入术后结膜脓性肉芽肿形成的原因分析(英文)

目的:分析羟基磷灰石(hydroxyapatite,HA)义眼台眶内植入术后结膜脓性肉芽肿形成的原因。方法:回顾性分析我院眶内植入HA义眼台250例(钻孔及栓钉置入68例),随诊18mo~10a,脓性肉芽肿形成后首先药物保守治疗,无效后采用手术治疗。结果:植入HA义眼台250例中发生脓性肉芽肿10例,其中9例在钻孔及栓钉置入术4~7a后发生,1例发生时羟基磷灰石义眼台未钻孔。9例保守治疗效果均欠佳,行HA义眼台取出术,1例拒绝眼台取出而继续保守治疗。结论:脓性肉芽肿是严重的义眼台植入术后并发症,发生原因可能与义眼台植入后血管化不足,义眼台暴露与继发感染,异体材料包被,义眼台钻孔及栓钉置入等因素有关,而与栓钉的材料无关。脓性肉芽肿的发生意味着义眼台可能发生了感染,最终需行义眼台取出术。     

义眼台植入术后脓性肉芽肿形成原因的探讨

目的探讨珊瑚多孔羟基磷灰石义眼台植入术后脓性肉芽肿形成的原因。方法回顾性分析我院羟基磷灰石义眼台植入250例,及外院手术者1例,共251例(251眼),对其中发生脓性肉芽肿的病例、分析其发生的原因。随诊4月~9年。结果251例中发生脓性肉芽肿4例(包括外院1例),其中1例脓性肉芽肿形成时,义眼台尚未钻孔,3例在钻孔及栓钉置入术4~7年后脓性肉芽肿形成。4例保守治疗效果欠佳,3例最终行义眼台取出术,1例拒绝手术。结论脓性肉芽肿形成是羟基磷灰石义眼台眶内植入较少见的并发症,发生原因与义眼台暴露,义眼台血管纤维化不足,义眼台钻孔及栓钉置入等有关。脓性肉芽肿的形成预示义眼台发生了感染,致病菌以厌氧性革兰氏染色阳性球菌为主。义眼台取出术是治疗的关键。     

HA眼台植入后脓性肉芽肿形成的原因分析

目的分析珊瑚多孔羟基磷灰石(HA)义眼台眶内植入术后脓性肉芽肿形成的原因,探讨其有效的治疗方法。方法回顾性分析我院眶内植入HA义眼台250例(钻孔及栓钉置入68例),外院1例,随诊18月-10年,脓性肉芽肿形成后给予药物及手术治疗。结果250例中发生脓性肉芽肿6例,其中5例在钻孔及栓钉置入术4～7年后发生,1例发生时羟基磷灰石义眼台未钻孔。6例保守治疗效果欠佳,均行HA义眼台取出术。结论脓性肉芽肿的发生原因可能与义眼台血管纤维化不足,义眼台暴露,异体巩膜包被,义眼台钻孔及栓钉置入等有关。脓性肉芽肿保守治疗效果欠佳,最终行义眼台取出术。     

Pyogenic granuloma following oculoplastic procedures: an imbalance in angiogenesis regulation?

BACKGROUND: Pyogenic granuloma is a vasoproliferative inflammatory response composed of granulation tissue. The pathogenesis is not entirely clear. We describe a series of patients with pyogenic granulomas occurring following common oculoplastic procedures and propose a common etiology. METHODS: Sixteen cases of pyogenic granuloma that occurred after various oculoplastic procedures from 1991 to 2000 were collected from the files of two oculoplastic surgeons. RESULTS: Pyogenic granulomas were found to occur at surgical and nonsurgical sites associated with tissue irritation or inflammation or both. INTERPRETATION: Capillaries are a predominant component of wound healing and pyogenic granulomas. The growth and development of new capillaries follows an orderly sequence of events that is highly regulated by a variety of angiogenic factors. We postulate an imbalance in angiogenesis regulation as the common pathway for pyogenic granuloma development.     

Pericranium grafts for exposed orbital implants

PURPOSE: To report the use of autologous pericranium grafts to cover exposed orbital implants. METHODS: A two-center consecutive case series of exposed orbital implants covered with autologous pericranium grafts. A patch of pericranium was harvested from the parieto-occipital region and was placed over the implant within a pocket between the implant and the Tenon capsule, followed by layered closure of Tenon and conjunctiva. RESULTS: Four patients (2 women, 2 men) with a mean age of 37 years (range, 26 to 45 years) were included in the study. The mean follow-up period was 9.5 months (range, 7 to 12 months). In all cases, there was no recurrence of exposure and no donor site morbidity. A small pyogenic granuloma, arising from the conjunctival suture line, developed in one case. CONCLUSIONS: Autologous pericranium is a useful covering material for exposed orbital implants and may be used as an alternative to frontal periosteum.     

Clinicopathologic analysis of 15 explanted hydroxyapatite implants

PURPOSE: To report the clinical findings, treatment, outcomes, and histopathologic findings in patients with suspected orbital implant infection requiring implant removal. METHODS: Retrospective, observational case series of 14 patients (15 hydroxyapatite orbital implants) undergoing implant removal from September 1994 through December 2002. Patient age, type of surgery, implant type, symptoms, treatment, histopathology of implant, and follow-up course were analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 14 patients, 7 were female and 7 were male. The mean age at explantation was 42 years. The most common symptoms were discharge and socket tenderness. The most common signs were conjunctival inflammation (edema, hyperemia), discharge, and recurrent pyogenic granuloma. Clinical evidence of infection was documented in 13 patients. Histopathologic assessment of the 15 explanted implants showed acute inflammation and necrosis (abscess) with identification of microorganisms (5 patients), acute inflammation and necrosis without identification of microorganisms (4 patients), chronic inflammation with identification of microorganisms (1 patient), chronic inflammation without identification of microorganisms (3 patients), and a predominant foreign body granulomatous response without identification of microorganisms (2 patients). Osseous metaplasia was seen in 10 implants. Prompt resolution of symptoms and signs occurred in all but one case. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical course of porous orbital implant infection may be prolonged, and the early symptom of recurrent discharge, a common problem for implant recipients, may delay diagnosis. Implant infection should be suspected when there is persistent conjunctival inflammation and discharge after implant placement despite antibiotic therapy, discomfort on implant palpation, and recurrent pyogenic granuloma (indicative of implant exposure). Implant removal is usually required in these cases. If orbital pain (not necessarily related to implant palpation) is the main complaint, without signs of conjunctival inflammation and with or without discharge, one should consider other reasons for the symptoms.     

Aspergillus mycetoma in a secondary hydroxyapatite orbital implant: a case report and literature review.

OBJECTIVE: The authors describe the first case report of a fungal abscess within a hydroxyapatite orbital implant in a patient who had undergone straightforward secondary hydroxyapatite implant surgery. DESIGN: Case report and literature review. INTERVENTION: Four months postoperatively after pegging and 17 months after original implant placement, chronic discharge and socket irritation became evident. Recurrent pyogenic granulomas were a problem, but no obvious area of dehiscence was present over the implant. The peg and sleeve were removed 31 months after pegging (44 months after original placement of the implant). The pain and discharge did not resolve, and the entire hydroxyapatite orbital implant was removed 45 months after sleeve placement and 58 months after initial implant placement. The pain and discharge settled rapidly. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cultures and histopathology. RESULTS: Results of bacterial cultures were negative. Results of histopathologic examination of the implant disclosed intertrabecular spaces with multiple clusters of organisms consistent with Aspergillus. CONCLUSIONS: Persistent orbital discomfort, discharge, and pyogenic granulomas after hydroxyapatite implantation should cause concern regarding potential implant infection. The authors have now shown that this implant infection could be bacterial or fungal in nature. This is essentially a new form of orbital Aspergillus, that of a chronic infection limited to a hydroxyapatite implant.     

Coralline hydroxyapatite orbital implant (bio-eye): experience with 158 patients

PURPOSE: To assess the problems seen in 158 patients with coralline hydroxyapatite (HA) orbital implants (Bio-Eye). METHODS: A consecutive case series of 170 patients receiving coralline HA implanted by two surgeons over a 5-year period were reviewed. The authors analyzed age, type of surgery, implant size, peg system, follow-up duration, time of pegging, problems encountered, and treatment. RESULTS: Twelve patients were lost to follow-up after 5 months, leaving 158 patients who were followed from 6 to 130 months (average, 39 months). Problems in unpegged implants occurred in 36 (22.8%) patients. Discharge occurred in 18 (11.4%) patients, implant exposure in 12 (7.6%), socket discomfort in 1 (0.6%), conjunctival thinning in 3 (1.9%), chronic conjunctival swelling in 2 (1.3%), and implant infection in 3 (1.9%). Problems after pegging occurred in 68 (50.7%) of 134 patients: discharge in 27 (20.1%), pyogenic granuloma in 24 (17.9%), conjunctiva overgrowing the peg in 4 (3.0%), implant exposure around the sleeve in 5 (3.7%), clicking in 6 (4.5%), peg on an angle in 2 (1.5%), loose sleeve in 1 (0.7%), peg falling out in 18 (13.4%), popping peg in 1 (0.7%), poor transfer of movement in 3 (2.2%), pain with movement in 1 (0.7%), and implant infection in 2 (1.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The Bio-Eye orbital implant represents a porous orbital implant that is biocompatible with orbital tissues and allows fibrovascular ingrowth and improved motility when coupled to the overlying artificial eye. It is more expensive than other commercially available porous orbital implants, such as synthetic FCI3 HA, porous polyethylene (Medpor), and aluminum oxide (Bioceramic) implant. Problems encountered with its use are similar to those problems seen in patients with the synthetic FCI3 hydroxyapatite and aluminum oxide orbital implants.     

Bovine pericardium versus homologous sclera as a wrapping for hydroxyapatite orbital implants

PURPOSE: To report our experience with bovine pericardium as a wrapping material for hydroxyapatite orbital implants after enucleation and to compare the exposure rates of the implants wrapped with bovine pericardium versus donor sclera. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of all patients who received bovine pericardium-wrapped or donor sclera-wrapped hydroxyapatite implant after primary enucleation between March 1995 and December 2001. RESULTS: Of the 26 patients who received donor sclera-wrapped implants after enucleation, 1 (3.8%) had implant exposure. Of the 26 patients who received bovine pericardium-wrapped implants after enucleation, 6 (23%) had implant exposure. The incidence of implant exposure with the use bovine pericardium wrapping material was found to be significantly higher than with sclera (P = 0.05). Six of the 7 implant exposures were noted in the first 6 months after placement of the orbital implant. Five of the 6 exposed bovine pericardium-wrapped hydroxyapatite implants were associated with socket infection. The case of exposure of the sclera-wrapped implant was treated conservatively by observation. Six patients who had exposure of bovine pericardium-wrapped implants required multiple repairs because of recurrent exposures. Four of these patients eventually required removal of the implant. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the advantages of using bovine pericardium as a wrapping material for hydroxyapatite orbital implants, we observed a significantly higher incidence of exposure with bovine pericardium compared with donor sclera in the early postoperative period. Use of bovine pericardium as a wrapping material for orbital implants should be avoided unless some future modifications of the technique can be developed to prevent such complications.     

The bioceramic orbital implant: experience with 107 implants

PURPOSE: To assess the problems associated with the Bioceramic (Aluminum oxide, Al(2)O(3)) orbital implant. METHODS: A consecutive case series of 107 patients receiving a Bioceramic orbital implant by two surgeons over a 3-year period were reviewed. The authors analyzed patient age, type of surgery, size of implant, peg system, follow-up duration, time of pegging, complications encountered, and treatment. RESULTS: Seven patients were lost to follow-up after 2 months, leaving 100 patients who were followed from 3 to 38 months (average, 13.4 months). Three patients died during the follow-up period (one with 2 months' follow-up, one with 7 months' follow-up, and the third with 9 months' follow-up). Implant-related problems occurred in 11 (11%) patients. Discharge occurred in 5 (5%) patients, implant exposure in 2 (2%), socket discomfort in 1 (1%), trochleitis in 1 (1%), and conjunctival thinning in 2 (2%). Peg problems occurred in 11 (34.3%) of 32 pegged patients: discharge in 4 (12.5%) and in 1 patient (3.1%) each, pyogenic granuloma, conjunctiva overgrowing the peg, implant exposure around the sleeve, clicking, accumulation of black material, and broken peg during insertion. Infection did not occur in any patient. CONCLUSIONS: The Bioceramic orbital implant represents an alternative porous orbital implant that is biocompatible with orbital tissues, easy to manufacture, structurally strong, and less expensive than other commercially available porous orbital implants (e.g., Bio-Eye hydroxyapatite implant). Problems encountered with its use are similar to those seen with the Bio-Eye orbital implants but appear to occur less often. The incidence of exposure associated with the Bioceramic implant is less than that reported for the Bio-Eye.     

Pyogenic granulomas after silicone punctal plugs: a clinical and histopathologic study

PURPOSE: To describe clinical findings, histopathologic changes, and risk factors for pyogenic granuloma formation complicating silicone punctal plug therapy. DESIGN: Retrospective observational case series. METHODS: Between November 2000 and April 2004, 903 silicone punctal plugs of the same brand were inserted in 404 subjects. Cases associated with pyogenic granuloma formation were identified and reviewed. Granulation tissue was obtained from 10 patients for histopathologic examination. Multiple risk regression analyses identified factors related to pyogenic granuloma development and factors associated with histologic patterns. RESULTS: Pyogenic granuloma development led to the extrusion of 4.2% of all plugs placed in a median time period of 141 days. All patients presented with varying degrees of plug extrusion. Similar distributions of partial and complete plug extrusions, as well as bilateral and unilateral plug extrusions, were seen. Findings at presentation ranged from a subclinical pyogenic granuloma causing partial plug extrusion to a pyogenic granuloma in the punctum with a ring of fibrovascular tissue retaining a completely extruded plug. Histopathologic examination revealed two patterns, representing either acute pyogenic granuloma or involuting pyogenic granuloma. Pyogenic granulomas resolved after 3.1 +/- 1.3 weeks in all patients after plug removal. Multiple regression analysis revealed that large plug size was associated with increased pyogenic granuloma formation (P < .0001). Partial or complete plug extrusion was associated with active or involuting pyogenic granuloma, respectively (P = .023). CONCLUSION: Pyogenic granuloma-related spontaneous plug extrusions may be more common than previously thought and can present with a range of clinical findings. The degree of plug extrusion correlates with the histopathologic pattern. Larger plug size and sharp edges in plug geometry may be responsible for pyogenic granuloma formation.     

Current trends in managing the anophthalmic socket after primary enucleation and evisceration

PURPOSE: To evaluate current trends in the management of the anophthalmic socket after primary enucleation and evisceration. METHODS: The active membership of the American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (ASOPRS) was surveyed regarding primary enucleations and eviscerations performed between January and December 2002. Survey questions included practice demographics, orbital implant use, wrapping materials, placement of a motility peg, reasons for implant choice, and complications encountered. RESULTS: A total of 2,779 primary orbital implants were reported, comprising 1,919 (69.1%) enucleations and 860 (30.9%) eviscerations. The high-density porous polyethylene implant was used most frequently for enucleations (42.7%), followed by coralline hydroxyapatite (27.3%) and nonporous alloplastic implants (19.9%). For eviscerations, the high-density porous polyethylene implant was the most commonly used implant (42.3%), followed by hydroxyapatite (25.9%) and nonporous alloplastic implants (25.7%). The top 3 reasons for implant choice were outcome (69.3%), cost (43.6%), and experience (39.5%). Most implants were either not wrapped (59.8%) or were wrapped in donor sclera (25.2%) or polyglactin mesh (7.2%). Pegs were used in 8.1% of all implants reported. The most frequent complications encountered for unpegged implants were exposure (3.2%) and infection (0.4%). For pegged implants, the most common complications reported were pyogenic granuloma (13.7%), exposure (5.7%), and discharge (5.7%). CONCLUSIONS: In managing the anophthalmic socket, ASOPRS survey respondents preferred to use the porous polyethylene implant after primary enucleation and evisceration. Most orbital implants were not wrapped, and most surgeons preferred not to place a motility post or peg in the implant.     

Late reexposure after upper eyelid tarsoconjunctival flap for exposed porous orbital implant.

The records of four patients with exposed porous orbital implant treated with the upper eyelid tarsoconjunctival Hughes flap were reviewed. The tarsoconjunctival Hughes flap was fashioned for two patients with recurrent orbital porous implant exposure and two patients with primary orbital porous implant exposure (5 to 6 mm at largest dimension; mean, 5.6 mm). There were two hydroxyapatite and two high-density polyethylene implants. In all patients, reexposure (2 to 3 mm at largest dimension; mean, 2.5 mm) occurred 6 to 24 weeks (mean, 13 weeks) after the tarsoconjunctival Hughes flap procedure at the junction of the flap and the socket surface conjunctiva. Mean follow-up duration was 18.7 months (range, 7 to 27 months). Linear late reexposure is the main drawback of the upper eyelid tarsoconjunctival Hughes flap to cover an exposed orbital porous implant.     

Problems after evisceration surgery with porous orbital implants: experience with 86 patients

PURPOSE: To assess the problems associated with the use of 4 types of porous orbital implant (Bio-Eye coralline hydroxyapatite, FCI3 synthetic hydroxyapatite, aluminium oxide [Bioceramic], and porous polyethylene [Medpor]) after evisceration surgery. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was made of all cases of evisceration with placement of one of four types of porous orbital implants performed between 1991 and 2002 by one surgeon (n = 86). Patient age, implant type and size, surgery type (standard evisceration or evisceration with posterior sclerotomies), peg system used, follow-up duration, time of pegging, problems before and after pegging, and treatment were recorded. RESULTS: Eight patients had less than 6 months of follow-up. The other 78 patients were followed for 6 to 107 months (average, 31 months). The following problems were noted before peg placement: discharge, 8 patients (10.2%); implant exposure, 6 patients (7.7%); implant fracture at the time of surgery, 1 patient (1.3%); persistent pain, 1 patient (1.3%). Of the 29 patients who had pegging, problems including discharge, exposure, pyogenic granuloma, infection, and peg sleeve problems occurred in 23 (79.3%). Sixteen (55.2%) of the 29 patients required at least 1 additional surgical procedure, 4 required 3 additional procedures, and 2 required 5 additional procedures, including implant removal. CONCLUSIONS: Although primary evisceration with posterior sclerotomies and placement of a porous orbital implant is an accepted technique for treating a variety of end-stage eye diseases, patients should be cautioned about an increased likelihood of problems and potential need for additional surgeries if pegging is considered.     

Late infection of hydroxyapatite orbital implants

BACKGROUND: Exposure and minor complications of hydroxyapatite orbital implants are common. Infection appears to be rare and fibrovascular ingrowth into hydroxyapatite implants may make infection and extrusion less likely than with other types of orbital implant. METHODS: We describe three cases of chronic low-grade infection of hydroxyapatite implants, occurring late after apparently uncomplicated surgery, with tiny or inapparent areas of conjunctival loss or exposure. RESULTS: Two of the three cases grew Staphylococcus oureus on culture. All three implants ultimately needed to be removed. A characteristic histological pattern was seen, with abrupt transition between vascularized and abscessed implant. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic infection of hydroxyapatite implants can occur late, in the absence of large conjunctival defects, or other obvious risk factors.While exposure of the implant to pathogens through a breach in the conjunctiva may have been a factor, it appeared that the infection may have arisen in an avascular portion of the implant prior to the conjunctival breakdown in one or more of these cases.     

Exposed hydroxyapatite orbital implants. Report of six cases.

Six patients with complications of primary or secondary hydroxyapatite implants were studied. Complications included socket infection and/or conjunctival dehiscence. Complications were detected during regular follow-up examinations, and various treatment approaches were used. The hydroxyapatite implant exposure occurred 4 to 6 weeks (mean, 4.5 weeks) after implantation. Three of the six implants were wrapped in preserved donor sclera before implantation. One of the implants showed wide exposure and chronic infection and was removed. In two cases, scleral patch grafts with a conjunctival pedicle graft were performed, resulting in successful coverage of the implant without further conjunctival dehiscence. In one of the patients, a Tenon's conjunctival flap was advanced to cover the defect, and was unsuccessful with the spicules of the hydroxyapatite eroding through the vascular flap after 1 month. Three of the patients demonstrate a persistent conjunctival epithelial defect. These three patients with chronically exposed hydroxyapatite have remained stable with follow-up intervals ranging from 8 to 12 months. Early exposure of hydroxyapatite orbital implants is a potential problem despite meticulous technique. Implant coverage is difficult, although chronic exposure seems to be tolerated often in the hydroxyapatite orbital implant without migration or extrusion.     

Safety of unwrapped spherical orbital implants

PURPOSE: To determine the exposure rate of unwrapped spherical orbital implants after enucleation surgery. METHODS: Retrospective review of consecutive case series. All patients undergoing orbital implantation during enucleation surgery from October 1999 to September 2003 were included. Charts were reviewed for preoperative diagnoses, type and size of implant, use of a wrapping material, and complications. RESULTS: Twenty-six consecutive patients underwent enucleation surgery without wrapping material. Nineteen patients received porous polyethylene, 5 patients received polymethylmethacrylate, and 2 received hydroxyapatite. Mean implant diameter was 21.03 mm. Mean follow-up was 17.1 months (range, 2 to 43 months). There were no complications of implant extrusion, exposure, infection, or migration. CONCLUSIONS: The use of unwrapped spherical orbital implants may be associated with a low rate of early exposure. Careful choice of implant type may help reduce the risk of implant exposure.     

One‐stage explant–implant procedure of exposed porous orbital implants

Purpose: To investigate the risks of implant exposure after a combined explant–implant procedure in patients with an exposed porous orbital implant. Methods: Twenty‐four consecutive patients who had a combined explant–implant procedure of an exposed hydroxyapatite (21) or porous polyethylene (3) orbital implant from January 2000 to February 2009 were included. The patient records were reviewed; patients were interviewed by telephone and invited for a clinical examination. Histopathological examination was carried out on the removed implants. Main outcome measures were: presence of exposure of the new implant or not, patient graded satisfaction with the cosmetic result, and presence of poor motility. Results: None of the new implants became exposed or infected in the follow‐up period of 25 [3–94] months (median [range]). The patients scored their satisfaction with the cosmetic result to a median score of 9 (range 5–10). Poor motility was present in six of 17 patients. Micro‐organisms were identified in three removed implants and signs of inflammation were present in 20 removed implants. Conclusions: If a decision of implant removal has been made, it is safe to replace the implant at the same procedure in sockets without profound signs of infection. The procedure carries a possible risk of poor motility.     

Six cases of bacterial infection in porous orbital implants

BACKGROUND: We present 6 cases of bacterial infection that developed after porous orbital implant surgery. CASES: Five patients with hydroxyapatite implants showed lid swelling, discharge, and suppurative granuloma 14 days to 3 years after surgery. The hydroxyapatite implants were removed 14 days to 41 months postoperatively, and synthetic porous polyethylene orbital implants were inserted. Thick discharge and conjunctival melting was noted 14 months after primary Medpor implant surgery in the sixth patient, and the infection was controlled by medical therapy. OBSERVATIONS: The culture of specimens removed with swabs from the conjunctiva of patients and from the hydroxyapatite implants showed growth of Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, alpha-hemolytic streptococcus and peptostreptococcus in 4 patients, whereas Streptococcus pyogenes were cultured from the conjunctiva in the Medpor implant patient. Culture for the remaining patient was negative .CONCLUSIONS: If there is continuous pain, injection, and discharge after porous implant insertion, bacterial infection in the implant should be considered immediately. Systemic antibiotics and topical eye drops should be administered without delay. If no improvement is observed, the implant should be removed and a different approach must be considered.     

Treatment of intractable orbital implant exposure with a large conjunctival defect by secondary insertion of the implant after preceding dermis fat graft

AIM:To report a procedure and results of a two-stage operation to manage intractable extensive orbital implant exposure with a large conjunctival defect which was difficult to treat with dermis fat grafts due to repeated graft necrosis.METHODS:A retrospective chart review of four patients who had extensive orbital implant exposures with large conjunctival defects and had past histories of repeated autologous or preserved dermis graft failures was done. As a first-stage operation, the problematic pre-existing orbital implants were removed and autologous dermis fat grafts alone were performed on the defect area. Four months later, new orbital implants were secondarily inserted after confirmation of graft survival. The size of the conjunctival defects and state of the extraocular muscles were checked preoperatively. Success of the operations and complications were investigated.RESULTS:The mean size of the conjuctival defects was 17.3mm×16.0mm, and the mean time from the initial diagnosis of orbital implant exposure to implant removal and autologous dermis fat graft was 20.8 months. After implant removal and autologous dermis fat graft, no graft necrosis was observed in any patients. Also, implant exposure or fornix shortening was not observed in any patients after new orbital implant insertion.CONCLUSION:The secondary insertion of a new orbital implant after pre-existing implant removal and preceding dermis fat graft is thought to be an another selective management of intractable orbital implant exposure in which dermis fat grafts persistently fail.