Eye Socket Regeneration and Reconstruction

References

• Jung SK, Cho WK, Paik JS, Yang SW. Long-term surgical outcomes of porous polyethylene orbital implants: a review of 314 cases. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2012;96(4):494–98. doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2011-300132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoon JS, Lew H, Kim SJ, Lee SY. Exposure rate of hydroxyapatite orbital implants: a 15-year experience of 802 cases. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(3):566–572. e562. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.06.014.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ralph R. Conjunctival goblet cell density in normal subjects and in dry eye syndromes. Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. 1975;14:299–302.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tawfik HA, Raslan AO, Talib N. Surgical management of acquired socket contracture. Curr. Opin. Ophthalmol. 2009;20(5):406–11. doi:10.1097/ICU.0b013e32832ed85b.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kheirkhah A, Blanco G, Casas V, Hayashida Y, Raju VK, Tseng SC. Surgical strategies for fornix reconstruction based on symblepharon severity. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2008;146(2):266–275. e264. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2008.03.028.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson HW, Collin JR. Mucous membrane grafting. Dev. Ophthalmol. 2008;41:230–42.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lubin MF, Dodson TF, Winawer NH. Medical management of the surgical patient: a textbook of perioperative medicine. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Clearfield E, Muthappan V, Wang X, Kuo IC. Conjunctival autograft for pterygium. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD011349.pub2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nuzzi R, Tridico F. How to minimize pterygium recurrence rates: clinical perspectives. Clin. Ophthalmol. (Auckland, NZ). 2018;12:2347. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S186543.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghoz N, Elalfy M, Said D, Dua H. Healing of autologous conjunctival grafts in pterygium surgery. Acta Ophthalmol. (Copenh). 2018;96(8):e979–e988. doi:10.1111/aos.13794.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hwang HS, Cho KJ, Rand G, Chuck RS, Kwon JW. Optimal size of pterygium excision for limbal conjunctival autograft using fibrin glue in primary pterygia. BMC Ophthalmol. 2018;18(1):135. doi:10.1186/s12886-018-0790-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan DT, Chee SP, Dear KB, Lim AS. Effect of pterygium morphology on pterygium recurrence in a controlled trial comparing conjunctival autografting with bare sclera excision. Arch .Ophthalmol. 1997;115(10):1235–40. doi:10.1001/archopht.1997.01100160405001.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lu Q, Al-Sheikh O, Elisseeff JH, Grant MP. Biomaterials and tissue engineering strategies for conjunctival reconstruction and dry eye treatment. Middle East Afr. J. Ophthalmol. 2015;22(4):428. doi:10.4103/0974-9233.167818.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kohanim S, Palioura S, Saeed HN, Akpek EK, Amescua G, Basu S, Blomquist PH, Bouchard CS, Dart JK, Gai X. Acute and chronic ophthalmic involvement in Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis–a comprehensive review and guide to therapy. Ocul. Surf. 2016;14(2):168–88. doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2016.02.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schrader S, Notara M, Beaconsfield M, Tuft SJ, Daniels JT, Geerling G. Tissue engineering for conjunctival reconstruction: established methods and future outlooks. Curr. Eye Res. 2009;34(11):913–24. doi:10.3109/02713680903198045.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wakamatsu TH, Sant AEBPP, Cristovam PC, Alves VAF, Wakamatsu A, Gomes JAP. Minor salivary gland transplantation for severe dry eyes. Cornea. 2017;36:S26–S33. doi:10.1097/ICO.0000000000001358.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mai C, Bertelmann E. Oral mucosal grafts: old technique in new light. Ophthalmic Res. 2013;50(2):91–98. doi:10.1159/000351631.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim JH, Chun YS, Lee SH, Mun SK, Jung HS, Lee SH, Son Y, Kim JC. Ocular surface reconstruction with autologous nasal mucosa in cicatricial ocular surface disease. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2010;149(1):45–53. e42. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2009.07.030.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wenkel H, Rummelt V, Naumann GO. Long term results after autologous nasal mucosal transplantation in severe mucus deficiency syndromes. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2000;84(3):279–84. doi:10.1136/bjo.84.3.279.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kheirkhah A, Ghaffari R, Kaghazkanani R, Hashemi H, Behrouz MJ, Raju VK. A combined approach of amniotic membrane and oral mucosa transplantation for fornix reconstruction in severe symblepharon. Cornea. 2013;32(2):155–60. doi:10.1097/ICO.0b013e318247983d.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arora R, Mehta D, Jain V. Amniotic membrane transplantation in acute chemical burns. Eye. 2005;19(3):273. doi:10.1038/sj.eye.6701490.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barabino S, Rolando M, Bentivoglio G, Mingari C, Zanardi S, Bellomo R, Calabria G. Role of amniotic membrane transplantation for conjunctival reconstruction in ocular-cicatricial pemphigoid. Ophthalmology. 2003;110(3):474–80. doi:10.1016/S0161-6420(02)01892-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solomon A, Espana EM, Tseng SC. Amniotic membrane transplantation for reconstruction of the conjunctival fornices. Ophthalmology. 2003;110(1):93–100. doi:10.1016/S0161-6420(02)01441-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma N, Thenarasun S, Kaur M, Pushker N, Khanna N, Agarwal T, Vajpayee RB. Adjuvant role of amniotic membrane transplantation in acute ocular Stevens–Johnson syndrome: a randomized control trial. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(3):484–91. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.10.027.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beutel J, Sommer K, Gottschalk S, Neppert B, Geerling G. Plattenepithelkarzinom der bindehaut mit orbitainvasion. Der Ophthalmol. 2006;103(8):693–97. doi:10.1007/s00347-006-1372-1.
   Google Scholar
• Keelan JA, Sato T, Mitchell MD. Interleukin (il)-6 and il-8 production by human amnion: regulation by cytokines, growth factors, glucocorticoids, phorbol esters, and bacterial lipopolysaccharide. Biol. Reprod. 1997;57(6):1438–44. doi:10.1095/biolreprod57.6.1438.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solomon A, Rosenblatt M, Monroy D, Ji Z, Pflugfelder SC, Tseng SC. Suppression of interleukin 1α and interleukin 1β in human limbal epithelial cells cultured on the amniotic membrane stromal matrix. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2001;85(4):444–49. doi:10.1136/bjo.85.4.444.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koizumi N, Inatomi T, Sotozono C, Fullwood NJ, Quantock AJ, Kinoshita S. Growth factor mrna and protein in preserved human amniotic membrane. Curr. Eye Res. 2000;20(3):173–77. doi:10.1076/0271-3683(200003)2031-9FT173.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bajaj MS, Pushker N, Singh KK, Chandra M, Ghose S. Evaluation of amniotic membrane grafting in the reconstruction of contracted socket. Ophthal. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2006;22(2):116–20. doi:10.1097/01.iop.0000200887.26015.d4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mandour SS, Elmazar HM, Marey HM, Rahman AKA, Sakr RA. Mucous membrane grafting augmented with topical mitomycin c application in contracted socket repair surgeries. J. Ocul. Pharmacol. Ther. 2016;32(10):691–94. doi:10.1089/jop.2016.0041.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dua HS, Maharajan VS, Hopkinson A. Controversies and limitations of amniotic membrane in ophthalmic surgery. In: Controversies and limitations of amniotic membrane in ophthalmic surgery. Cornea and external eye disease. Reinhard, T., Larkin, D., Eds.; Berlin: Springer; 2006; pp. 21–33.
   Google Scholar
• Dua H, Rahman I, Miri A, Said D. Variations in amniotic membrane: relevance for clinical applications. In: Variations in amniotic membrane: relevance for clinical applications. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2010;94:963–64. doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2017.11.054
   Google Scholar
• Tamhane A, Vajpayee RB, Biswas NR, Pandey RM, Sharma N, Titiyal JS, Tandon R. Evaluation of amniotic membrane transplantation as an adjunct to medical therapy as compared with medical therapy alone in acute ocular burns. Ophthalmology. 2005;112(11):1963–69. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.05.022.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spaniol K, Holtmann C, Geerling G, Schrader S. New approaches to ocular surface reconstruction beyond the cornea. Ophthalmologe. 2017;114(4):307–17. doi:10.1007/s00347-016-0419-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee SY, Oh JH, Kim JC, Kim YH, Kim SH, Choi JW. In vivo conjunctival reconstruction using modified plga grafts for decreased scar formation and contraction. Biomaterials. 2003;24(27):5049–59. doi:10.1016/S0142-9612(03)00411-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He M, Storr-Paulsen T, Wang AL, Ghezzi CE, Wang S, Fullana M, Karamichos D, Utheim TP, Islam R, Griffith M. Artificial polymeric scaffolds as extracellular matrix substitutes for autologous conjunctival goblet cell expansion. Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. 2016;57(14):6134–46. doi:10.1167/iovs.16-20081.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ang LP, Cheng ZY, Beuerman RW, Teoh SH, Zhu X, Tan DT. The development of a serum-free derived bioengineered conjunctival epithelial equivalent using an ultrathin poly (ε-caprolactone) membrane substrate. Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. 2006;47(1):105–12. doi:10.1167/iovs.05-0512.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma S, Mohanty S, Gupta D, Jassal M, Agrawal AK, Tandon R. Cellular response of limbal epithelial cells on electrospun poly-ε-caprolactone nanofibrous scaffolds for ocular surface bioengineering: a preliminary in vitro study. Mol. Visual. 2011;17:2898.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yao Q, Zhang W, Hu Y, Chen J, Shao C, Fan X, Fu Y. Electrospun collagen/poly (l-lactic acid‑co‑ε‑caprolactone) scaffolds for conjunctival tissue engineering. Exp. Ther. Med. 2017;14(5):4141–47. doi:10.3892/etm.2017.5073.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsu W-C, Spilker MH, Yannas IV, Rubin PA. Inhibition of conjunctival scarring and contraction by a porous collagen-glycosaminoglycan implant. Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. 2000;41:2404–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merrett K, Fagerholm P, McLaughlin CR, Dravida S, Lagali N, Shinozaki N, Watsky MA, Munger R, Kato Y, Li F. Tissue-engineered recombinant human collagen-based corneal substitutes for implantation: performance of type i versus type iii collagen. Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. 2008;49(9):3887–94. doi:10.1167/iovs.07-1348.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou H, Lu Q, Guo Q, Chae J, Fan X, Elisseeff JH, Grant MP. Vitrified collagen-based conjunctival equivalent for ocular surface reconstruction. Biomaterials. 2014;35(26):7398–406. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.05.024.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calderón-Colón X, Xia Z, Breidenich JL, Mulreany DG, Guo Q, Uy OM, Tiffany JE, Freund DE, McCally RL, Schein OD. Structure and properties of collagen vitrigel membranes for ocular repair and regeneration applications. Biomaterials. 2012;33(33):8286–95. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.07.062.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drechsler C, Kunze A, Kureshi A, Grobe G, Reichl S, Geerling G, Daniels J, Schrader S. Development of a conjunctival tissue substitute on the basis of plastic compressed collagen. J. Tissue Eng. Regener. Med. 2015;11(3):896–904.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witt J, Borrelli M, Mertsch S, Geerling G, Spaniol K, Schrader S. Evaluation of plastic compressed collagen for conjunctival repair in a rabbit model. Tissue Eng. Part A. 2018;25:1084–95. doi:10.1089/ten.TEA.2018.0190
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dehghani S, Rasoulianboroujeni M, Ghasemi H, Keshel SH, Nozarian Z, Hashemian MN, Zarei-Ghanavati M, Latifi G, Ghaffari R, Cui Z. 3d-printed membrane as an alternative to amniotic membrane for ocular surface/conjunctival defect reconstruction: an in vitro & in vivo study. Biomaterials. 2018;174:95–112. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.05.013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu X, Beuerman RW, Chan-Park M, Cheng Z, Ang LP, Tan DT. Enhancement of the mechanical and biological properties of a biomembrane for tissue engineering the ocular surface. Ann. Acad. Med. Singapore. 2006;35:210.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borrelli M, Joepen N, Reichl S, Finis D, Schoppe M, Geerling G, Schrader S. Keratin films for ocular surface reconstruction: evaluation of biocompatibility in an in-vivo model. Biomaterials. 2015;42:112–20. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.11.038.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borrelli M, Reichl S, Feng Y, Schargus M, Schrader S, Geerling G. In vitro characterization and ex vivo surgical evaluation of human hair keratin films in ocular surface reconstruction after sterilization processing. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 2013;24(1):221–30. doi:10.1007/s10856-012-4774-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feng Y, Borrelli M, Meyer-ter-Vehn T, Reichl S, Schrader S, Geerling G. Epithelial wound healing on keratin film, amniotic membrane and polystyrene in vitro. Curr. Eye Res. 2014;39(6):561–70. doi:10.3109/02713683.2013.853804.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reichl S, Borrelli M, Geerling G. Keratin films for ocular surface reconstruction. Biomaterials. 2011;32(13):3375–86. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.01.052.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cakmak H, Can GD, Can M, Cagil N. A novel graft option after pterygium excision: platelet-rich fibrin for conjunctivoplasty. Eye. 2017;31(11):1606. doi:10.1038/eye.2017.109.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Safinaz M, Norzana A, Nizam MH, Ropilah A, Faridah H, Chua K, Ruszymah B, Jemaima C. The use of autologous fibrin as a scaffold for cultivating autologous conjunctiva in the treatment of conjunctival defect. Cell Tissue Bank. 2014;15(4):619–26. doi:10.1007/s10561-014-9436-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long K, Liu Y, Li W, Wang L, Liu S, Wang Y, Wang Z, Ren L. Improving the mechanical properties of collagen‐based membranes using silk fibroin for corneal tissue engineering. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A. 2015;103(3):1159–68. doi:10.1002/jbm.a.35268.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witt J, Mertsch S, Borrelli M, Dietrich J, Geerling G, Schrader S, Spaniol K. Decellularised conjunctiva for ocular surface reconstruction. Acta Biomater. 2017;67:259–69. doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2017.11.054.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witt J, Dietrich J, Geerling G, Mertsch S, Schrader S, Spaniol K. Tissue engineered conjunctival substitute on the basis of decellularized porcine conjunctiva. Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. 2019;60:6253.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sotozono C, Inatomi T, Nakamura T, Koizumi N, Yokoi N, Ueta M, Matsuyama K, Kaneda H, Fukushima M, Kinoshita S. Cultivated oral mucosal epithelial transplantation for persistent epithelial defect in severe ocular surface diseases with acute inflammatory activity. Acta Ophthalmol. (Copenh). 2014;92(6):e447–e453. doi:10.1111/aos.12397.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Satake Y, Higa K, Tsubota K, Shimazaki J. Long-term outcome of cultivated oral mucosal epithelial sheet transplantation in treatment of total limbal stem cell deficiency. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(8):1524–30. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.01.039.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ang LP, Tanioka H, Kawasaki S, Ang LP, Yamasaki K, Do TP, Thein ZM, Koizumi N, Nakamura T, Yokoi N. Cultivated human conjunctival epithelial transplantation for total limbal stem cell deficiency. Invest. Ophthalmol. Visual Sci. 2010;51(2):758–64. doi:10.1167/iovs.09-3379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hussey GS, Dziki JL, Badylak SF. Extracellular matrix-based materials for regenerative medicine. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2018;3:159–73. doi:10.1038/s41578-018-0023-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fagerholm P, Lagali NS, Ong JA, Merrett K, Jackson WB, Polarek JW, Suuronen EJ, Liu Y, Brunette I, Griffith M. Stable corneal regeneration four years after implantation of a cell-free recombinant human collagen scaffold. Biomaterials. 2014;35(8):2420–27. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.11.079.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fagerholm P, Lagali NS, Merrett K, Jackson WB, Munger R, Liu Y, Polarek JW, Söderqvist M, Griffith M. A biosynthetic alternative to human donor tissue for inducing corneal regeneration: 24-month follow-up of a phase 1 clinical study. Sci. Transl. Med. 2010;2(46):46ra61–46ra61. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3001022.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown RA, Wiseman M, Chuo CB, Cheema U, Nazhat SN. Ultrarapid engineering of biomimetic materials and tissues: fabrication of nano‐and microstructures by plastic compression. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2005;15(11):1762–70. doi:10.1002/adfm.200500042.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spaniol K, Witt J, Mertsch S, Borrelli M, Geerling G, Schrader S. Generation and characterisation of decellularised human corneal limbus. Graefes Arch. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2018;256:547–57. doi:10.1007/s00417-018-3904-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee EW, Berbos Z, Zaldivar RA, Lee MS, Harrison AR. Use of dermamatrix graft in oculoplastic surgery. Ophthal. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2010;26(3):153–54. doi:10.1097/IOP.0b013e3181b8e788.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shorr N, Perry JD, Goldberg RA, Hoenig J, Shorr J. The safety and applications of acellular human dermal allograft in ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery: A preliminary report. Ophthal. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2000;16(3):223–30. doi:10.1097/00002341-200005000-00010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borrelli M, Unterlauft J, Kleinsasser N, Geerling G. Decellularized porcine derived membrane (tarsys®) for correction of lower eyelid retraction. Orbit. 2012;31(3):187–89. doi:10.3109/01676830.2012.669012.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Park SJ, Kim Y, Jang SY. The application of an acellular dermal allograft (alloderm) for patients with insufficient conjunctiva during evisceration and implantation surgery. Eye (Lond). 2018;32(1):136–41. doi:10.1038/eye.2017.161.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teo L, Woo YJ, Kim DK, Kim CY, Yoon JS. Surgical outcomes of porcine acellular dermis graft in anophthalmic socket: comparison with oral mucosa graft. Korean J. Ophthalmol. 2017;31(1):9–15. doi:10.3341/kjo.2017.31.1.9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kinoshita S, Koizumi N, Nakamura T. Transplantable cultivated mucosal epithelial sheet for ocular surface reconstruction. Exp. Eye Res. 2004;78(3):483–91. doi:10.1016/j.exer.2003.09.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prabhasawat P, Ekpo P, Uiprasertkul M, Chotikavanich S, Tesavibul N, Pornpanich K, Luemsamran P. Long-term result of autologous cultivated oral mucosal epithelial transplantation for severe ocular surface disease. Cell Tissue Bank. 2016;17(3):491–503. doi:10.1007/s10561-016-9575-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gopakumar V, Agarwal S, Srinivasan B, Krishnakumar S, Krishnan UM, Iyer G. Clinical outcome of autologous cultivated oral mucosal epithelial transplantation in ocular surface reconstruction. Cornea. 2019;38:1273–79. doi:10.1097/ICO.0000000000002082.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shields CL, Uysal Y, Marr BP, Lally SE, Rodriques E, Kharod B, Shields JA. Experience with the polymer-coated hydroxyapatite implant after enucleation in 126 patients. Ophthalmology. 2007;114(2):367–73. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.08.030.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hicks CR, Morrison D, Lou X, Crawford GJ, Gadjatsy A, Constable IJ. Orbital implants: potential new directions. Expert Rev. Med. Devices. 2006;3(6):805–15. doi:10.1586/17434440.3.6.805.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thaller V. Enucleation volume measurement. Ophthal. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1997;13(1):18–20. doi:10.1097/00002341-199703000-00003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaltreider SA, Jacobs JL, Hughes MO. Predicting the ideal implant size before enucleation. Ophthal. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1999;15:37–43. doi:10.1097/00002341-199901000-00009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Custer PL, Trinkaus KM. Volumetric determination of enucleation implant size. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1999;128(4):489–94. doi:10.1016/S0002-9394(99)00252-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nunery WR, Cepela MA, Heinz GW, Zale D, Martin RT. Extrusion rate of silicone spherical anophthalmic socket implants. Ophthal. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1993;9(2):90–95. doi:10.1097/00002341-199306000-00003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shields CL, Shields JA, De Potter P, Singh AD. Problems with the hydroxyapatite orbital implant: experience with 250 consecutive cases. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1994;78(9):702–06. doi:10.1136/bjo.78.9.702.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Culler AM. Enucleation and cosmetic rehabilitation: criteria for evaluation of current procedures. AMA Arch. Ophthalmol. 1951;45(4):445–57. doi:10.1001/archopht.1951.01700010455011.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kaltreider SA. The ideal ocular prosthesis: analysis of prosthetic volume. Ophthal. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2000;16(5):388–92. doi:10.1097/00002341-200009000-00013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaltreider SA, Lucarelli MJ. A simple algorithm for selection of implant size for enucleation and evisceration: a prospective study. Ophthal. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2002;18(5):336–41. doi:10.1097/00002341-200209000-00004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashworth J, Rhatigan M, Brammar R, Sunderland S, Leatherbarrow B. A clinical study of the hydroxyapatite orbital implant. Eur. J. Ophthalmol. 1997;7(1):1–8. doi:10.1177/112067219700700101.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sagoo MS, Rose GE. Mechanisms and treatment of extruding intraconal implants: socket aging and tissue restitution (the “cactus syndrome”). Arch .Ophthalmol. 2007;125(12):1616–20. doi:10.1001/archopht.125.12.1616.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chalasani R, Poole-Warren L, Conway RM, Ben-Nissan B. Porous orbital implants in enucleation: a systematic review. Surv. Ophthalmol. 2007;52(2):145–55. doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2006.12.007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garibaldi DC, Iliff NT, Grant MP, Merbs SL. Use of porous polyethylene with embedded titanium in orbital reconstruction: a review of 106 patients. Ophthal. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2007;23(6):439–44. doi:10.1097/IOP.0b013e31815a1235.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadiq SA, Mengher LS, Lowry J, Downes R. Integrated orbital implants—a comparison of hydroxyapatite and porous polyethylene implants. Orbit. 2008;27(1):37–40. doi:10.1080/01676830701512585.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Naik MN, Murthy RK, Honavar SG. Comparison of vascularization of medpor and medpor-plus orbital implants: a prospective, randomized study. Ophthal. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2007;23(6):463–67. doi:10.1097/IOP.0b013e318158ec8e.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guthoff R, Vick H, Schaudig U. Prevention of postenucleation syndrome: the hydroxylapatite silicone implant. Preliminary experimental studies and initial clinical experiences. Ophthalmologe. 1995;92:198–205.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ma X, Schou KR, Maloney-Schou M, Harwin FM, Ng JD. The porous polyethylene/bioglass spherical orbital implant: a retrospective study of 170 cases. Ophthal. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2011;27(1):21–27. doi:10.1097/IOP.0b013e3181de01a7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kotlus BS, Dryden RM. Correction of anophthalmic enophthalmos with injectable calcium hydroxylapatite (radiesse). Ophthal. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2007;23(4):313–14. doi:10.1097/IOP.0b013e318068742c.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madill S, Maclean H. Enucleation with reverse replacement of sclera as an alternative to conventional evisceration. Orbit. 2005;24(1):23–28. doi:10.1080/01676830590894671.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wells TS, Harris GJ. Direct fixation of extraocular muscles to a silicone sphere: a cost-sensitive, low-risk enucleation procedure. Ophthal. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2011;27(5):364–67. doi:10.1097/IOP.0b013e31821c1298.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jongman HP, Marinkovic M, Notting I, Koetsier L, Swart W, Schalij‐Delfos NE, Bleeker J, Jager MJ, Luyten GP. Donor sclera‐wrapped acrylic orbital implants following enucleation: experience in 179 patients in the netherlands. Acta Ophthalmol. (Copenh). 2016;94(3):253–56. doi:10.1111/aos.12960.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tataru C, Pop M. Enucleation in malignant choroidal melanoma-results in 15 years of using a new material in the prosthesis of the orbital cavity. J. Med. Life. 2012;5:185.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schellini S, El Dib R, Silva LR, Farat JG, Zhang Y, Jorge EC. Integrated versus non‐integrated orbital implants for treating anophthalmic sockets. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016;11. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD011360.pub2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Colen TP, Paridaens DA, Lemij HG, Mourits MP, van den Bosch WA. Comparison of artificial eye amplitudes with acrylic and hydroxyapatite spherical enucleation implants. Ophthalmology. 2000;107(10):1889–94. doi:10.1016/S0161-6420(00)00348-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shome D, Honavar SG, Raizada K, Raizada D. Implant and prosthesis movement after enucleation: a randomized controlled trial. Ophthalmology. 2010;117(8):1638–44. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.12.035.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tari AS, Malihi M, Kasaee A, Tabatabaie SZ, Hamzedust K, Musavi MF, Rajabi MT. Enucleation with hydroxyapatite implantation versus evisceration plus scleral quadrisection and alloplastic implantation. Ophthal. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2009;25(2):130–33. doi:10.1097/IOP.0b013e3181984dfe.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith B, Petrelli R. Dermis-fat graft as a movable implant within the muscle cone. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 1978;85(1):62–66. doi:10.1016/S0002-9394(14)76666-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nentwich MM, Schebitz-Walter K, Hirneiss C, Hintschich C. Dermis fat grafts as primary and secondary orbital implants. Orbit. 2014;33(1):33–38. doi:10.3109/01676830.2013.844172.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Aryasit O, Preechawai P. Indications and results in anophthalmic socket reconstruction using dermis-fat graft. Clin. Ophthalmol. 2015;9:795. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S77948.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith B, Bosniak S, Nesi F, Lisman R. Dermis-fat orbital implantation: 118 cases. Ophthalmic Surg. Lasers Imaging. 1983;14:941–43.
   Google Scholar
• Sihota R, Sujatha Y, Betharia SM. The fat pad in dermis fat grafts. Ophthalmology. 1994;101(2):231–34. doi:10.1016/S0161-6420(94)31342-X.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galindo-Ferreiro A, Khandekar R, Hassan SA, Al-Hammad F, Al-Subaie H, Artioli Schellini S. Dermis-fat graft for anophthalmic socket reconstruction: indications and outcomes. Arq. Bras. Oftalmol. 2018;81(5):366–70. doi:10.5935/0004-2749.20180073.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frileck SP. The lumbrical fat graft: A replacement for lost upper eyelid fat. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2002;109(5):1696–706. doi:10.1097/00006534-200204150-00036.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Czyz CN, Foster JA, Wulc AE. Superior sulcus volumetric rejuvenation utilizing dermis fat grafting. Aesthet. Surg. J. 2015;35(7):892–98. doi:10.1093/asj/sjv078.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin T-M, Lin T-Y, Chou C-K, Lai C-S, Lin S-D. Application of microautologous fat transplantation in the correction of sunken upper eyelid. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Global Open. 2014;2(11):e259. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000000141.
   Google Scholar
• Sergott TJ, Vistnes LM. Correction of enophthalmos and superior sulcus depression in the anophthalmic orbit: a long-term follow-up. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 1987;79(3):331–38. doi:10.1097/00006534-198703000-00001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krishna DS, Soumadip D. Reconstruction of orbital floor fractures with porous polyethylene implants: A prospective study. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2016;15(3):300–07. doi:10.1007/s12663-015-0840-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raisian S, Fallahi HR, Khiabani KS, Heidarizadeh M, Azdoo S. Customized titanium mesh based on the 3d printed model vs. Manual intraoperative bending of titanium mesh for reconstructing of orbital bone fracture: a randomized clinical trial. Rev. Recent Clin. Trials. 2017;12(3):154–58. doi:10.2174/1574887112666170821165206.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li J, Li P, Lu H, Shen L, Tian W, Long J, Tang W. Digital design and individually fabricated titanium implants for the reconstruction of traumatic zygomatico-orbital defects. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2013;24(2):363–68. doi:10.1097/SCS.0b013e3182701243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koch K, Trester W, Müller-Uri N, Trester M, Cursiefen C, Heindl L. Ocular prosthetics. Fitting, daily use and complications. Der Ophthalmol. 2016;113(2):133–42. doi:10.1007/s00347-015-0091-x.
   Google Scholar
• Rokohl AC, Mor JM, Trester M, Koch KR, Heindl LM. Rehabilitation of anophthalmic patients with prosthetic eyes in germany today-supply possibilities, daily use, complications and psychological aspects. Klin. Monbl. Augenheilkd. 2019;236(1):54–62. doi:10.1055/a-0764-4974.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar