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.     

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。     

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.     

Complications associated with pegging hydroxyapatite orbital implants

OBJECTIVE: Prior studies of hydroxyapatite orbital implant complications have primarily focused on complications of the implant itself with only occasional mention of the complications associated with the peg system. This in part may be because of a low rate of pegging and, thus, a small sample size to evaluate. Therefore, a full range of complications that can occur with pegging has not been presented. The objective of this study was to determine the complications associated with pegging and to discuss ways to manage them. DESIGN: Retrospective, noncomparative case series. PARTICIPANTS/INTERVENTION: The authors analyzed all of the complications associated with pegging 165 of a possible 275 hydroxyapatite implants implanted by 2 surgeons over 7 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The following data were recorded: type of surgery performed, size of implant used, type of hydroxyapatite used, peg system used, time of pegging, follow-up duration, problems encountered, and treatment. RESULTS: Sixty-two (37.5%) of the 165 patients who had pegged implants were found to have problems with their pegs. Twenty-one (33.8%) of the 62 patients with peg problems had more than 1 peg-related problem. Complications associated with pegging included discharge (37%; 23 of 62), pyogenic granulomas (30.6%; 19 of 62), peg falling out (29%; 18 of 62), poor transfer of movement (11.2%; 7 of 62), clicking (11.2%; 7 of 62), conjunctiva overgrowing peg (4.8%; 3 of 62), poor-fitting sleeve (4.8%; 3 of 62), part of sleeve shaft visible (4.8%; 3 of 62), peg drilled on an angle (4.8%; 3 of 62), hydroxyapatite visible around peg hole (3.2%; 2 of 62), peg drilled off-center (3.2%; 2 of 62), popping peg (3.2%; 2 of 62), and excess movement of peg (3.2%; 2 of 62). The most serious complication occurring in two individuals (3.2%) was implant infection requiring implant removal. CONCLUSION: There are several potential complications that can occur after pegging the hydroxyapatite implant. These problems are generally of a minor nature but often require additional patient visits that would not ordinarily have been required if the peg was not in place. The most serious peg problem is implant infection, which may necessitate implant removal. These potential peg problems should be reviewed with the patient before the procedure is performed.     

A new titanium peg system for hydroxyapatite orbital implants

PURPOSE: To evaluate a new hydroxyapatite-coated titanium sleeve and titanium peg system for HA orbital implants. METHODS: The authors followed 54 patients receiving an HA-coated titanium sleeve and peg system and analyzed the complications associated with this peg system. The following data were recorded: type of surgery performed, size of implant used, type of HA used, time of pegging, follow-up duration, problems encountered, and treatment. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients received the HA-coated titanium peg and sleeve system. The average duration of follow-up was 15 months (range, 3-30 months). Three patients were lost to follow-up after 1 month. Complications associated with peg placement in 54 patients included: discharge (9.2%), pyogenic granulomas (14.8%), peg falling out during prosthesis removal (9.2%), poor transfer of movement (1.8%), clicking (3.7%), conjunctiva overgrowing peg (1.8%), part of sleeve shaft visible (9.2%), peg drilled on an angle (1.8%), HA visible around peg hole (3.7%), and loose sleeve (3.7%). CONCLUSION: The HA-coated titanium sleeve and titanium peg is a new peg system available for HA orbital implants. Many of the complications associated with this peg system are similar to the commonly used polycarbonate peg system. Pyogenic granulomas and discharge, however, appear to be less frequently encountered with this new system. The HA-coated titanium sleeve and titanium pegs were well tolerated and appeared quieter in the socket than most polycarbonate pegs.     

Primary placement of a titanium sleeve in hydroxyapatite orbital implants

BACKGROUND: To study a new surgical option of primary placement of a titanium sleeve into hydroxyapatite implants during enucleation or evisceration. METHODS: A standard enucleation or cornea preserved evisceration was performed, followed by preplacement of a titanium sleeve into the hydroxyapatite implant by a hand drill sleeve driver. Care must be taken to ensure that the titanium sleeve is positioned centrally when the implant is put inside the orbital socket or eviscerated shell. The Tenon capsule and conjunctiva were meticulously closed with minimal tension. Complications such as sleeve exposure, coralline exposure, and infection of the titanium sleeve were closely observed. RESULTS: In all, 30 patients were treated in the above fashion with 10 enucleation and 20 evisceration procedures. The follow-up period ranged from 9 to 24 months. Three of the sleeves were found to have exposed spontaneously at 5 and 7 weeks following original surgery. They had no further complication except one sleeve loosening. The remaining 27 sleeves that did not spontaneously expose pursued secondary exposure of the titanium sleeve and peg insertion by conjunctival cutdown procedure 3 months after original surgery. Two sleeves were found to be oblique positioned after the conjunctival cutdown procedure. Fortunately, all the 30 patients were successfully fit with a peg-coupled prosthesis with good motility. CONCLUSION: Primary placement of a titanium sleeve into hydroxyapatite implants has several advantages, including high patient acceptance, technical simplicity, and office-based conjunctival cutdown pegging procedure. By avoiding the expense of postoperative imaging study and additional prosthetic modification, a more rapid and efficient rehabilitation is possible.     

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.     

Culture-proven Aspergillus fumigatus infection in a primary hydroxyapatite orbital implant

Hydroxyapatite orbital implants are widely used in enucleation surgery. Infection in this setting is an uncommon but severe complication. Herein a patient with a 3-year history of chronic socket discharge, orbital discomfort, conjunctival breakdown and implant exposure after enucleation and implantation of a hydroxyapatite sphere 7 years previously is reported. Repeated attempts at covering the exposed implant failed. Eventually the implant was removed, and Aspergillus fumigatus was cultured from the explanted material. This is the second reported case of Aspergillus infection of a hydroxyapatite orbital implant, and the first case where fungal cultures were positive.     

Spontaneous loosening of hydroxyapatite peg sleeves.

OBJECTIVE: To report a new complication associated with pegging hydroxyapatite orbital implants: spontaneous loosening of the sleeve. DESIGN: Retrospective noncomparative case series. PARTICIPANTS: Four patients ranging in age from 38 to 60 years participated. METHODS: Four patients are described who successfully received hydroxyapatite orbital implants with motility peg and sleeve systems. In each case spontaneous loosening of the sleeve developed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Clinical and surgical outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Three patients had the peg and sleeve removed followed by repair of the peg hole, and one patient had placement of a larger diameter peg and sleeve system. All patients did well. CONCLUSIONS: Problems have been reported when motility coupling pegs are used with hydroxyapatite orbital implants. Spontaneous loosening of the sleeve is another potential complication to discuss with the patient considering an implant peg.     

Experience with 120 synthetic hydroxyapatite implants (FCI3)

PURPOSE: To assess the problems and/or complications associated with the use of a synthetic hydroxyapatite implant (FCI, Cedex, France). METHODS: The authors analyzed all of the problems and/or complications associated with the use of a third-generation synthetic hydroxyapatite implant (FCI3) in 120 patients by one surgeon over 4 years. The following data were recorded: age, type of surgery performed, size of implant used, peg system used, follow-up duration, time of pegging, problems and/or complications encountered, and treatment. RESULTS: Thirteen patients were lost to follow-up after 3 months, leaving 107 patients who were followed up from 4 to 48 months (average, 29 months). Discharge occurred in 21 (19.6%) patients, implant exposure in 3 (2.8%), socket discomfort in 2 (1.9%), trochleitis in 2 (1.9%), conjunctival thinning in 1 (0.93%), and pyogenic granuloma in 1 (0.93%). Peg problems occurred in 24 (35.2%) of 68 patients. Problems encountered with the peg were discharge in 10 (14.7%) patients, pyogenic granuloma in 9 (13.2%), conjunctiva overgrowing the peg in 4 (5.8%), hydroxyapatite exposure around the sleeve in 3 (4.4%), loose sleeve in 3 (4.4%), peg drilled on an angle in 1 (1.5%), implant infection in 1 (1.5%), and peg falling out in 1 (1.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The FCI3 synthetic hydroxyapatite is a less costly alternative form of hydroxyapatite currently in use in many parts of the world. Problems and complications encountered with its use are similar to those seen with the Bio-Eye Integrated Orbital Implants, Inc., San Diego, CA, U.S.A. The incidence of exposure associated with the synthetic hydroxyapatite implant is lower than several other reports on the Bio-Eye. The synthetic hydroxyapatite implant is slightly softer than the Bio-Eye and fractured under extreme pressure in one case.     

Complications of motility peg placement for porous hydroxyapatite orbital implants

AIM: To evaluate the complications associated with pegging of porous hydroxyapatite orbital implants. METHODS: Complications associated with pegging were retrospectively reviewed from the charts of 100 of 133 patients with hydroxyapatite implantation from 1993 to 2000. RESULTS: 48 (48%) of the 100 hydroxyapatite implanted patients who had undergone pegging were found to have problems with their pegs, including discharge (45.8%), peg falling out (20.8%), pyogenic granulomas (16.7%), popping peg (14.6%), hydroxyapatite visible around peg hole (8.3%), part of peg shaft visible (6.2%), peg drilled off centre (6.2%), peg drilled at an angle (4.2%), and excess movement of peg (4.2%). The standard peg fell out statistically more often than the peg and sleeve system (Yates's corrected chi(2), p=0.038). There was a trend towards complications of the peg with use of a standard peg (versus sleeved peg) (p=0.226). CONCLUSIONS: There are several potential complications of pegging. Most complications are minor and can be managed successfully.     

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。     

The use of vicryl mesh in 200 porous orbital implants: a technique with few exposures

PURPOSE: To report the results of a wrapping technique for porous orbital implants by using polyglactin 910 (Vicryl) mesh (Ethicon Inc., Somerville, NJ, U.S.A.). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 200 consecutive patients from one author's practice who received a polyglactin 910 mesh-wrapped porous orbital implant after enucleation or as a secondary implant between October 1, 1996, and April 15, 2001. We recorded potential problems that might be attributed to polyglactin 910 mesh both before pegging (excessive inflammatory response to the material, conjunctival thinning, and implant exposure) and after pegging (exposure of the implant around the sleeve, conjunctival thinning, and implant exposure other than adjacent to the peg). RESULTS: One hundred twenty-two men and 78 women underwent placement of a polyglactin 910 mesh-wrapped porous orbital implant. The average age at the time of implantation was 48.9 years (range, 11 to 85 years). The average follow-up interval in the 200 patients was 19.4 months (range, 2 to 80 months). Thirteen of the 200 patients had less than 6 months of follow-up, leaving 187 patients with an average follow-up of 20.5 months (range, 6 to 80 months). There were 76 primary enucleations and 124 secondary orbital implants. Thirty-seven patients received a Bio-Eye hydroxyapatite implant (HA) (Integrated Orbital Implants, San Diego, Calif), 97 received a synthetic FCI hydroxyapatite implant (FCI, Issy-Les-Moulineaux, France), and 66 received a Bioceramic implant (aluminum oxide-Al2O3) (FCI, Issy-Les-Moulineaux, France). One hundred fourteen patients (57%) underwent peg placement. The average time to pegging was 9.9 months (range, 6 to 16 months). Before pegging, 4 of 187 patients (2.1%) had implant exposure. Three of these exposures followed secondary orbital implant placement (2 Bio-Eye HA, 1 synthetic FCI3 HA) and one followed an enucleation (synthetic FCI3 HA). Two patients required a temporalis fascia graft and one required a scleral patch; the remaining defect closed spontaneously. One patient had conjunctival thinning 6 months after orbital implantation, which remained stable with no frank exposure for 36 months. No patient had excess socket inflammation. After peg placement, 3 additional patients had exposure of the implant around the peg site. There were no cases of conjunctival thinning or exposure of the implant other than adjacent to the peg site. CONCLUSIONS: Polyglactin 910 mesh is an excellent option as a wrapping material for porous orbital implants. It is simple to use, readily available, eliminates the need for donor tissue, does not require a second operative site, and it is less expensive than other currently available wrapping materials. We attribute our high success rate to our technique, which emphasizes proper placement of the implant within the Tenon space, suturing the extraocular muscles anterior to their normal anatomic sites, and meticulous closure of the Tenon capsule and conjunctiva in separate layers.     

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.     

Primary placement of a hydroxyapatite-coated sleeve in bioceramic orbital implants

PURPOSE: To study a new surgical option of primary placement of a hydroxyapatite-coated sleeve into the Bioceramic implant during enucleation or evisceration. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational case series. METHODS: A standard enucleation or evisceration was performed, followed by the preplacement of a hydroxyapatite-coated sleeve into the Bioceramic implant. Care must be taken to ensure the sleeve has been positioned centrally when the implant is put inside the orbital socket. Complications such as sleeve exposure, Bioceramic implant exposure, and infection were closely observed. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients were treated in above fashion with five enucleation and 22 evisceration procedures. Five of the sleeves have exposed spontaneously during 1 to 4 months after original surgery. They had no further complication, except for one sleeve around which there were visible Bioceramic spicules attributable to long-term corticosteroid usage. The remaining 22 sleeves that did not spontaneously expose pursued secondary exposure of the sleeve and peg insertion by the conjunctival cutdown procedure 3 months postoperatively. One sleeve was medially positioned far away from the implant center. Re-insertion of new sleeve and peg was scheduled 2 weeks later. One additional sleeve was obliquely positioned after conjunctival cutdown procedure. Fortunately, all 27 patients were successfully fitted with a peg-coupled prosthesis with good motility. CONCLUSIONS: Primary placement of a hydroxyapatite-coated sleeve into the Bioceramic implants has several advantages, including high patient acceptance, technical simplicity, and an office-based conjunctival cutdown pegging procedure. By avoiding the expense of postoperative imaging studies and additional prosthetic modification, a more rapid and efficient rehabilitation is possible.     

羟基磷灰石义眼台钻孔及栓钉置入术

目的 观察羟基磷灰石义眼台植入后钻孔及栓钉置入术的效果和并发平。方法 ４５例植入羟基磷灰石义眼台的患者,于术后０．５ａ左右行义眼台钻孔及栓钉置入。正确定位后用电钻或手工钻孔,拧入 孔螺钉,将平头钉插入螺钉孔内,结膜水肿消退后换圆头钉,配装活动性义眼。平均随访１３．６ｍｏ。结果 一次手术成功率为８２．２％。并发症有钻孔偏位、偏斜、孔浅钻孔处慢性肉芽肿、感染等,发生率为２２．２％。经治疗后不影响活动性义眼片安装。结论 羟基磷灰石义眼台钻孔及栓钉置入术改善义眼外观。钻孔及栓钉置入术的时机定位和钻孔准确是手术成功的关键。     

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.     

Chronic inflammation from polycarbonate motility peg inhibits osteogenesis in a human hydroxyapatite orbital implant

The histologic findings of a pegged hydroxyapatite orbital implant removed due to chronic inflammation and pain are described. A 44-year-old woman underwent explantation of a hydroxyapatite sphere and polycarbonate motility peg due to chronic redness, swelling, discharge, and pain. Histology revealed complete fibrovascularization of the implant, with approximately 90% ossification. No bone marrow was identified. Histologic sections revealed fibrous connective tissue at the periphery of a sclerotic bony mass with a granulomatous inflammatory infiltrate at the motility peg aperture. There were no bacterial, mycobacterial, or fungal organisms identified histologically or by culture. Consistent with previous reports, hydroxyapatite orbital implants are amenable to fibrovascular ingrowth and bony transformation. The presence of a granulomatous inflammatory reaction around the polycarbonate motility peg in this case may have prevented complete osseous transformation of the hydroxyapatite implant.     

Bovine pericardium as a wrapping for orbital implants

PURPOSE: We report the use of bovine pericardium as an alternative wrapping for porous orbital implants after enucleation. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of all patients who received a bovine pericardium-wrapped orbital implant after enucleation by the authors between August 1, 1996, and December 1, 1999. RESULTS: Eighty patients underwent placement of bovine pericardium-wrapped orbital implants. The average age at the time of implantation was 49.3 years (range, 5 years to 83 years). The mean follow-up interval was 11.8 months (range, 2 to 41 months). There were no intraoperative complications. No patient had secondary systemic infection or showed evidence of rejection. There was no clinical evidence to suggest that vascularization of the porous implant was unusually delayed, and there were no complications after secondary drilling and placement of a coupling post. Four (5%) of 80 patients had complications requiring removal of the spherical implant. All 4 patients had hydroxyapatite implants. Two patients had significant exposure requiring removal of the implant at 2 months after surgery; 1 patient had a chronic fistulous tract with secondary infection 3 years after surgery: and 1 patient had chronic orbital pain requiring removal of the implant at 1 year after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of implant exposure was less than 4%. This compares favorably to the incidence of exposure of 9% to 21% reported in recent literature. Other complications were few and of minimal clinical significance. The authors conclude that bovine pericardium is a viable option to sclera as a wrapping for porous orbital implants.