This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.
Porous orbital implant shows 7.4% exposure rate at 20-month follow-up
Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;147(1):162-170.
Click Here to Manage Email Alerts
Despite showing some complication risks, a porous aluminum oxide orbital implant had an exposure rate of less than 8% and proved durable, safe and highly biocompatible compared with acrylic orbital implants.
"In our experience, the Bioceramic implant (FCI Ophthalmics) was structurally strong, lightweight and easily manipulated and caused no systemic toxicity or local severe immune reaction after implantation," the study authors said.
The study included 108 patients who had a mean age of 38.6 years. Mean follow-up was 35.8 months. Primary implantation was performed after enucleation and evisceration; secondary implantation was done for anophthalmos and replacement of previous implants.
Seventy cases involved evisceration and primary orbital implantation; 30 cases involved enucleation; and eight cases involved secondary implantation. Eight cases of exposure, all occurring in eviscerated patients, were identified an average of 20.7 months after implantation. The exposure rate was 7.4%. It was higher in patients with eviscerated globes, pegged implants and previous ocular surgery (P < .005).
The take-home message of this retrospective study of patients with Bioceramic orbital implants by Wang et al is that the incidence of late exposure and related complications are similar for all of the available porous implants: hydroxyapatite, porous polyethylene and aluminum oxide. This paper provides a thoughtful review of the literature regarding the general issues in relation to orbital implant biocompatibility, surgical techniques of implantation, and management of late exposure and related complications. This study and discussion serve to remind us of the breadth of issues we must each discuss with any patient who may need to consider surgery to remove an eye and/or primary or secondary orbital implantation, with or without subsequent placement of a peg.
– Howard R. Krauss, MD
Clinical Professor of Ophthalmology, UCLA Jules Stein Eye
Institute