https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2751-1391
![Sample our Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5944/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Medicine-Dentistry-Nursing-Allied-Health.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Purpose
To describe the surgical outcomes and implant complications in 1,800 patients undergoing evisceration with primary implant
Methods
An Electronic Medical Record-driven analysis of 1,800 patients undergoing evisceration with primary implant between 2013 and 2019. Implant sizing was performed intra-operatively to place the largest implant without tension on the wound closure. Outcome measures included implant complications, prosthesis measurements, and incidence of a good aesthetic outcome. Good outcome was defined as <2 mm enophthalmos and grade 1 or less superior sulcus deformity with a custom ocular prosthesis.
Results
Eighteen hundred eyes of 1800 patients were included. The mean age at surgery was 36 ± 21 years (median 32 years). Implants used were poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) in 1737 (97%) and porous polyethylene in 63 (3%) patients. Two-petal sclerotomy was performed in 1512 (88%) and four-petal sclerotomy in 165 (10%) patients. The mean diameter of the implant used was 19.35 ± 1.18 mm (median 20, range 10–22 mm). The implant extrusion rate was 3% (56) and implant displacement was seen in none. The mean prosthesis volume and thickness were 2.22 ± 0.67 ml (median 2, range 1–6.5 ml) and 6 ± 1 mm (median 6, range 2–9 mm). The mean difference in prosthesis projection on Hertel’s exophthalmometer was 0.28 ± 1 mm (median 0, range 0–1 mm). Good outcome was observed in 93%. The mean follow-up period was 351 ± 386 days (median 194).
Conclusion
Evisceration with empirically selected primary orbital implant placement is associated with minimal implant complications and gives a good aesthetic outcome in 93% of the patients.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).