Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2024
One-stage Intraconal Volume Modification for Exposed and Nonexposed Ball 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.
Vahdani Kaveh, Rose Geoffrey E, Marjanovic Branka, Verity David H
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To assess long-term outcomes and reinterventions for exposed and nonexposed intraconal orbital implants after single-stage socket revisional surgery.
METHODS: Retrospective case-note review of patients with exposed or nonexposed orbital ball implants, who underwent a single-stage ball exchange (Group I) or ball removal with dermis-fat graft (Group II); Group I was subdivided as having either exposed (A) or nonexposed (B) implants. Outcomes were compared with similar cohorts undergoing multistage surgery.
RESULTS: Of 172 patients (54% male), 153 (89%) underwent ball exchange (Group I) and 19 (11%) had dermis-fat graft (Group II). With a mean follow up of 7.8 years, Group I patients without ball exposure (Group IB) had a slightly higher rate of reintervention for persistent volume deficit (21% vs. 9%; p = 0.163) and implant migration (6% vs. 0%; p = 0.091), while Group IA patients-having surgery for exposed implants-had more reexposures (7% vs. 3%; p = 0.270). Single-stage and 2-stage surgery had similar reintervention rates, with the exception of a trend toward fewer volume enhancements for those with nonexposed implants (17% vs. 30%; p = 0.380), and a shorter time to (re)exposure for exposed implants after 2-stage procedures (mean 0.33 vs. 3.5 years; p = 0.571). Group II patients required further volume enhancement in 32% of 1-stage procedures, and one patient needed graft removal.
CONCLUSION: Single-stage volume modification is effective and the results are comparable to staged surgery for either exposed or nonexposed implants. Most patients report a stable prosthesis and satisfactory cosmesis, after a faster rehabilitation.
METHODS: Retrospective case-note review of patients with exposed or nonexposed orbital ball implants, who underwent a single-stage ball exchange (Group I) or ball removal with dermis-fat graft (Group II); Group I was subdivided as having either exposed (A) or nonexposed (B) implants. Outcomes were compared with similar cohorts undergoing multistage surgery.
RESULTS: Of 172 patients (54% male), 153 (89%) underwent ball exchange (Group I) and 19 (11%) had dermis-fat graft (Group II). With a mean follow up of 7.8 years, Group I patients without ball exposure (Group IB) had a slightly higher rate of reintervention for persistent volume deficit (21% vs. 9%; p = 0.163) and implant migration (6% vs. 0%; p = 0.091), while Group IA patients-having surgery for exposed implants-had more reexposures (7% vs. 3%; p = 0.270). Single-stage and 2-stage surgery had similar reintervention rates, with the exception of a trend toward fewer volume enhancements for those with nonexposed implants (17% vs. 30%; p = 0.380), and a shorter time to (re)exposure for exposed implants after 2-stage procedures (mean 0.33 vs. 3.5 years; p = 0.571). Group II patients required further volume enhancement in 32% of 1-stage procedures, and one patient needed graft removal.
CONCLUSION: Single-stage volume modification is effective and the results are comparable to staged surgery for either exposed or nonexposed implants. Most patients report a stable prosthesis and satisfactory cosmesis, after a faster rehabilitation.