义眼座感染的临床病理分析

目的:探讨义眼座感染患者的临床和病理表现,以及其治疗和转归。方法:回顾分析2004-03/2012-06因义眼座感染在深圳市眼科医院取出义眼座的12例12眼患者的临床资料。结果:义眼座感染的临床表现为结膜囊分泌物增多、眼窝疼痛、结膜充血水肿(12眼),义眼座暴露(11眼),义眼自动脱落(10眼),复发性化脓性肉芽肿(1眼)。3眼结膜囊分泌物培养出表皮葡萄球菌,3眼涂片发现真菌菌丝,6眼培养结果为阴性。组织病理学检查可见义眼座前部有炎性细胞和坏死物碎屑,无纤维血管组织;义眼座后部有浓密的纤维血管组织生长,伴随炎性细胞。12例患者均取出感染的义眼座联合全身及局部抗感染治疗,7眼行Ⅱ期义眼座植入术,5眼拒绝接受整形手术。平均随访52mo,12例12眼均未出现感染复发。结论:义眼座感染是义眼座植入术后罕见的,也是最严重的并发症,通常需要取出义眼座联合抗感染治疗。     

Pyogenic granuloma as a presenting sign of hydroxyapatite orbital implant exposure: a clinicopathologic study

PURPOSE: We report 5 unusual cases of exposed hydroxyapatite orbital implants that presented as pyogenic granulomas. We propose pathogenesis and histopathologic correlations. METHODS: A clinicopathologic study of 5 patients with hydroxyapatite implants who presented with pyogenic granuloma. RESULTS: Pyogenic granulomas were detected 1.5 to 30 months after implantation in 5 patients. The lesions were multiple but were not related to the wound margin at the exposed area and were not covered by the surface epithelium in most instances. Exposure defects were detected in all patients at the time of lesion excision. The mean exposure size in the greatest dimension was 16 mm (range, 9-20 mm). Three patients were treated successfully with simple excision of the granulomas, burring down of the anterior surface of the implants, and direct repair of the exposure defects. Explantation of the implant was performed in 2 cases. Histopathologic examination revealed chronic inflammation and microabscess formation in the explanted implants. CONCLUSIONS: Five patients with pyogenic granulomas were found to have hydroxyapatite exposure. Pyogenic granuloma should not be considered a benign lesion on a hydroxyapatite orbital implant, especially in recurrent cases. Ophthalmologists must be aware of the possibility of conjunctival dehiscence with hydroxyapatite-implant exposure beneath the lesion.     

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。     

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。     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Complications Associated with Use of Tantalum-Mesh — Covered Implants

In 1948, ophthalmologists started implanting plastic spheres partially covered with tantalum mesh (eg, the Valley Forge Implant) in anophthalmic sockets. Numerous patients have developed complications ten to 15 years after surgery: pain (“pinching” or “deep”), headache, heavy mucopurulent discharge and diffuse conjunctival inflammation, migration of the implant, thinning or erosion of tissues covering the implant (extrusion), and inability to wear an artificial eye. Management includes refabrication of the artificial eye and replacement of the implant with a dermis-fat graft or a silicone ball plus scleral graft. Tantalum-mesh—covered orbital implants should probably not be used.     

An infected porous polyethylene orbital implant

A 75-year-old man underwent enucleation with placement of a porous polyethylene orbital implant (Medpor, Porex Technologies, Fairburn, GA, U.S.A.). Over the next 5 years, he was seen on numerous occasions with socket discharge that was unresponsive to a variety of eyedrops. Exposure and re-exposure of the implant occurred, and the implant was removed. Histopathologic assessment was consistent with an infectious process within the implant. Postoperatively, the patient's symptoms and signs resolved. Porous orbital implant infection is rare. The diagnosis may be delayed as the initial symptoms and signs (discharge, conjunctival inflammation) may easily be attributed to prosthesis wear. With time, and persistence of the symptoms despite numerous treatments, infection should be suspected.     

Complications of supramid orbital implants

PURPOSE: To determine the incidence and risk factors of complications associated with Supramid orbital implants. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed to document complications in a series of 41 patients receiving Supramid implants during orbital reconstruction or fracture repair. Implant size, duration of time between trauma and implant insertion, and history of prior orbital surgery were examined as possible risk factors for the development of complications. RESULTS: Four patients had hemorrhage within the implant capsule. An orbital abscess developed in a single patient. All but one complication appeared 7.8 to 10 years after implant insertion. Patients who had complications had a longer duration of time between trauma and implant insertion than those in whom complications did not occur (P =0.0019). Complications were more frequent among patients with larger (>600 mm2) implants and a history of orbital surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Spontaneous infection or hemorrhage may occur within the capsules of Supramid orbital implants, even many years after surgery. The insertion of larger implants in the late repair of extensive bony orbital defects may predispose patients to these complications. Implant removal and marsupialization of the implant capsule to the maxillary sinus appears to be curative without causing significant postoperative enophthalmos.     

Exposure of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene-wrapped hydroxyapatite orbital implant: a report of two patients

PURPOSE: Hydroxyapatite (HA) spheres used to replace volume after an enucleation are often wrapped with autologous tissue before orbital implantation. Man-made materials are less expensive and pose no risk for viral transmission. The use of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) to wrap HA spheres was evaluated. METHODS: The medical records of 2 consecutive patients who underwent uncomplicated implantation of an HA sphere wrapped in ePTFE were reviewed. RESULTS: An unusual reaction to the ePTFE material that was nonresponsive to topical or systemic antibiotic therapy developed in these 2 patients. Eventual wound erosion and bacterial infection of the implant necessitated its removal. CONCLUSIONS: Although well tolerated in other surgeries, ePTFE, when used to wrap HA spheres and placed into the orbit, may cause persistent conjunctival discharge, pyogenic granuloma formation, and eventual wound erosion. Therefore, the use of this material to wrap HA spheres is not recommended.     

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.     

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.     

Role of conjunctival inflammation in surgical outcome after amniotic membrane transplantation with or without fibrin glue for pterygium

PURPOSE: To determine the clinical significance of postoperative conjunctival inflammation noted at the third or fourth week after intraoperative application of mitomycin C and amniotic membrane transplantation for pterygium. METHODS: This retrospective study included 27 eyes of 23 patients with primary (n = 12) or recurrent (n = 15) pterygia. All cases were operated by extensive removal of subconjunctival fibrovascular tissue and intraoperative application of 0.04% mitomycin C in the fornix, followed by amniotic membrane transplantation by using either fibrin glue (14 eyes) or sutures (13 eyes). Main outcome measures included development of conjunctival inflammation, pyogenic granuloma, and pterygium recurrence after surgery. RESULTS: For a follow-up of 29.6 +/- 17.2 months (range, 6-56 months), 16 (59.3%) eyes without postoperative conjunctival inflammation resulted in favorable outcomes. Conjunctival inflammation around the surgical site was noted in the remaining 11 (40.7%) eyes and was significantly more common in eyes with sutures than those with fibrin glue (61.5% vs. 21.4%, respectively; P = 0.05). Among those with this inflammation, 7 eyes receiving subconjunctival injection of triamcinolone resulted in complete resolution and a good aesthetic outcome. Four eyes without this injection gradually developed conjunctival (n = 1) or corneal (n = 1) recurrence and/or pyogenic granuloma (n = 3). CONCLUSIONS: Host conjunctival inflammation is still common after intraoperative application of mitomycin C and amniotic membrane transplantation, especially when sutures are used in pterygium surgery. If left untreated, persistent inflammation may lead to a poor surgical outcome.     

Complications of primary placement of motility post in porous polyethylene implants during enucleation

PURPOSE: To evaluate the complications associated with the primary placement of a motility coupling post (MCP) in spherical porous polyethylene (PP) implants at the time of enucleation. DESIGN: Retrospective, interventional case series. METHODS: The records of all patients who had undergone primary enucleation and spherical PP implant with MCP insertion, and who were followed for at least six months were reviewed. The MCP was screwed to a wrapped implant to protrude 3 mm to 4 mm anteriorly. After placing the implant into the orbit, the extraocular muscles were sutured to the implant, and the Tenon capsule and conjunctiva were closed onto the MCP. When the MCP was not exposed spontaneously within two months after surgery, it was externalized with a conjunctival cut-down procedure. RESULTS: The study included 52 patients (29 male, 23 female; age range, three to 76 years). The MCP became exposed spontaneously in 10 patients (19%). In the early postoperative period, we recorded nine complications in seven patients (13%), which might be related to primary MCP placement. These included prominent MCP decentration associated with implant motility restriction (6%), preseptal cellulitis (4%), and conjunctival prolapsus (8%). An ocular prosthesis was fit successfully onto the MCP in 51 patients. During the late period, 22 complications occurred in 15 patients (29%), including excessive discharge (15%), MCP decentration (4%), implant exposure (6%), implant infection (2%), pyogenic granuloma (8%), conjunctival overgrowth over the MCP (2%), conjunctival discoloration (4%), and lax eyelid syndrome (2%). Mean follow-up time was 34 months (range, six to 68 months). CONCLUSIONS: Although MCP placement in the spherical PP implant during enucleation is a useful technique, it may be associated with complications such as MCP decentration, excessive discharge, exposure, and infection of the implant.     

Infected conjunctival pyogenic granuloma at strabismus surgery site mimicking conjunctival abscess

We present a rare case of infected pyogenic conjunctival granuloma mimicking a conjunctival abscess as complication of strabismus surgery in a Saudi girl with exotropia. Despite administration of local antibiotics following strabismus surgery, a patient presented with localised redness and discharge after three weeks. The patient was afebrile with no signs of pre-septal or orbital cellulitis. After culture (Staphylococcus aureus) sensitivity testing the patient was prescribed oral Amoxicillin and Clavulanate and reviewed under general anaesthesia. A 55?mm² conjunctival pyogenic granuloma was noted. A punch biopsy specimen indicated inflammatory and histiocytic cells. The addition of steroid to the medical therapy resulted in a quiet eye after three weeks.     

Valoración de la adhesión bacteriana en implantes orbitarios expuestos mediante microscopia electrónica y cultivo microbiológico

Three cases are presented of anophthalmic patients with exposed orbital implants. Although only one patient showed evident clinical signs of infection, all three implants were studied to determine the presence of microorganisms adhered to their surface using a scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and microbiological culture.The SEM allowed the visualisation of microorganisms adhered to the three implants, although only one of them showed growth in the microbiological cultures. In addition, the SEM technique used in case No. 3 achieved a better orientation and appreciation of the microorganisms with respect to the images of cases No. 1 and 2. These findings support the idea that the surface of exposed orbital implants is colonised by microorganisms, even when they still do not show obvious signs of infection. Therefore, mechanical removal of the exposed surface of the implant is necessary before covering it with grafts or flaps.     

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.     

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.