Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2004
Problems after evisceration surgery with porous orbital implants: experience with 86 patients.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Jordan David R
Аннотация
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.
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.