Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2003
The bioceramic orbital implant: experience with 107 implants.
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.
Jordan David R, Gilberg Steven, Mawn Louise A
Аннотация
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.
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.