Oman journal of ophthalmology · 2017
Orbital implant exposure following enucleation or evisceration.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Al-Farsi Huda Abdullah, Sabt Buthaina Issa, Al-Mujaini Abdullah Said
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To study the exposure rate of orbital implant postenucleation or evisceration procedures in two tertiary hospitals in Oman.
DESIGN: A retrospective, descriptive, cross-section study.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients' records were reviewed for patients' demographics, surgical indications, implant types, follow-up and any reported complications after surgeries. Patients with a minimum of 1 year follow-up period were selected. All patients who underwent enucleation or evisceration with primary orbital implant were included in the study. Patients who underwent secondary orbital implant were excluded from the study.
RESULTS: A total of 37 patients (age between 4 and 88-year-old, median age is 54-year-old) underwent enucleation or evisceration during 2008-2014. The most common indications for the surgical intervention were painful blind eye (35%), followed by trauma (16%), and perforated corneal ulcer (16%). Out of 37 patients, hydroxyapatite implant was implanted in 17 patients (46%), a glass or acrylic implant was implanted in 17 patients (46%), bioceramic implant was implanted in two patients (5%), and Molteno prosthesis was implanted in one patient (3%). There was no case of orbital implant exposure in any patients in this study.
CONCLUSIONS: No orbital implant exposure was recorded in this study. The surgical technique, end to end rectus muscles suturing, used for enucleation/evisceration was the main reason for reduced implant exposure. In addition, the preexisting ocular pathology did not affect the outcome of the study.
DESIGN: A retrospective, descriptive, cross-section study.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients' records were reviewed for patients' demographics, surgical indications, implant types, follow-up and any reported complications after surgeries. Patients with a minimum of 1 year follow-up period were selected. All patients who underwent enucleation or evisceration with primary orbital implant were included in the study. Patients who underwent secondary orbital implant were excluded from the study.
RESULTS: A total of 37 patients (age between 4 and 88-year-old, median age is 54-year-old) underwent enucleation or evisceration during 2008-2014. The most common indications for the surgical intervention were painful blind eye (35%), followed by trauma (16%), and perforated corneal ulcer (16%). Out of 37 patients, hydroxyapatite implant was implanted in 17 patients (46%), a glass or acrylic implant was implanted in 17 patients (46%), bioceramic implant was implanted in two patients (5%), and Molteno prosthesis was implanted in one patient (3%). There was no case of orbital implant exposure in any patients in this study.
CONCLUSIONS: No orbital implant exposure was recorded in this study. The surgical technique, end to end rectus muscles suturing, used for enucleation/evisceration was the main reason for reduced implant exposure. In addition, the preexisting ocular pathology did not affect the outcome of the study.