Acta ophthalmologica · 2010
One-stage explant-implant procedure of exposed porous orbital implants.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Toft Peter B, Rasmussen Marie L Roed, Prause Jan U
Аннотация
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.
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.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiocompatible MaterialsDurapatiteEye EnucleationEye EviscerationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOphthalmologic Surgical ProceduresOrbitOrbital ImplantsPatient SatisfactionPolyethylenesPostoperative ComplicationsProsthesis ImplantationReoperationRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsSurgical Wound DehiscenceYoung Adult