Porous and nonporous orbital implants for treating the anophthalmic socket: A meta-analysis of case series studies

References

• Sebastiá R, Lessa S, Flores EE. [Reconstrução da cavidade anoftálmica com implante esférico revestido de enxerto autólogo de fáscia lata]. Rev Bras Oftalmol 2000; 59:132–143.
   Google Scholar
• Schellini SA, Hoyama E, Padovani CR, Ferreira VL, Roça R. Complications with nonintegrated and integrated spheres in anophthalmic socket reconstruction. Arq Bras Oftalmol 2000; 63:175–178.
   Google Scholar
• Hornblass A, Biesman BS, Eviatar JA. Current techniques of enucleation: a survey of 5,439 intraorbital implants and a review of the literature. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 1995; 11:77–86; discussion 87–88.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moura EM, Vieira GSS. [Uso do implante esférico Medpor: análise de 61 cirurgias orbitárias]. Arq Bras Oftalmol 2007; 70:7–12.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Soares FJC, Moura EM, Gonçalves JOR. [Cirurgia Plástica Ocular]. São Paulo: Roca; 1997; 327–372.
   Google Scholar
• Shoamanesh A, Pang NK, Oestreicher JH. Complications of orbital implants: A review of 542 patients who have undergone orbital implantation and 275 subsequent peg placements. Orbit 2007; 26:173–182.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schellini S, El Dib RP. Integrated and non-integrated orbital implants for treating anophthalmic sockets. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013; Issue 1. Art. No.: CD010293. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010293.
   Google Scholar
• Li H-Y, Yang Q-C, Yan Q-C, Qiu H, Zhao Y, Zhang J-S. Clinical comparison of two kinds of orbital implants and discussion of surgical technique. Int J Ophthalmol 2010; 10:558–560.
   Google Scholar
• Reeves BC, Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Wells GA. Including non-randomized studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention. London: John Wiley & Sons; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Higgins JPT, Green S. Assessment of study quality. In: Alderson P, Green S, Higgins JPT, eds. Cochrane Reviewers’ Handbook 4.2.5. The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2005. 1st Ed. London: John Wiley & Sons; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysis. BMJ 2003; 327:557–560.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7:177–188.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perry AC. Integrated orbital implants. Adv Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 1988; 8:75–81.
   Google Scholar
• Kostick DA, Linberg JV, Dutton JJ. Evisceration with hydroxyapatite implant: surgical technique and review of 31 case reports. Ophthalmology 1995; 102:1542-–1549.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Georgiadis NS, Terzidou CD, Dimitriadis AS. Coralline hydroxyapatite sphere in orbit restoration. Eur J Ophthalmol 1999; 9:302–308.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karesh JW, Dresner SC. High-density porous polyethylene (Medpor) as a successful anophthalmic socket implant. Ophthalmology 1994; 101:1688–1695; discussion 1695–1696.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pan MH, Wu YW, Yen RF, Tzen KY, Liao SL, Kao CH. Different fibrovascularization rate between coralline hydroxyapatite and high density porous polyethylene (Medpore) measured by 99mTc-MDP bone scintigraphy 6 months after intraorbital implantation. Nucl Med Commun 2003; 24:1237–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chalasani R, Poole-Warren L, Conway RM, Bem-Nissan B. Porous orbital implants in enucleaion; a systematic review. Surv Opthalmol 2007; 52:145–155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schellini SA, Hoyama E, Padovani CR, Ferreira VL, Roça R. [Complicações com o uso de esferas não integráveis e integráveis na reconstrução da cavidade anoftálmica]. Arq Bras Oftalmol 2000; 63:175–178.
   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;115:566–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dutton JJ. Coralline hydroxyapatite as an ocular implant. Ophthalmology 1991; 98:370–377.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blázquez PGJ, González RS, Díaz LA, Bravo MS, Acosta JLA, Bravo SME, et al. HAP-200 porous hydroxyapatite used as a biocompatible spherical implant in surgical anophthalmos. Rev Cuba Oftalmol 1998; 11:5–13.
   Google Scholar
• Ashworth JL, Rhatigan M, Sampath R, Brammar R, Sunderland S, Leatherbarrow B. The hydroxyapatite orbital implant: A prospective study. Eye 1996; 10:29–37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klapper SR, Jordan DR, Ells A, Grahovac S. Hydroxyapatite orbital implant vascularization assessed by magnetic resonance imaging. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2003; 19:46–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perry JD, Tam RC. Safety of unwrapped spherical orbital implants. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 20:281–284.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vittorino M, Serrano F, Suarez F. Enucleation and evisceration: 370 cases review. Results and complications. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol 2007; 82:495–499.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nunery WR, Heinz GW, Bonnin JM, Martin RT, Cepela MA. Exposure rate of hydroxyapatite spheres in the anophthalmic socket: histopathologic correlation and comparison with silicone sphere implants. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 1993; 9:96–104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kadyan A, Sandramouli S. Porous polyethylene (Medpor) orbital implants with primary acellular dermis patch grafts. Orbit 2008; 27:19–23.
   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; 27:21–27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen YH, Cui HG. High density porous polyethylene material (Medpor) as an unwrapped orbital implant. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B 2006; 7:679–682.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moura E M, Vieira GS. [Use of Medpor spherical implant: analysis of 61 orbital surgeries]. Arq Bras Oftalmol 2007; 70:7–12.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lee S, Maronian N, Most SP, Whipple ME, McCulloch TM, Stanley RB, et al. Porous high-density polyethylene for orbital reconstruction. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005; 131:446–450.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Blaydon SM, Shepler TR, Neuhaus RW, White WL, Shore JW. The porous polyethylene (Medpor) spherical orbital implant: a retrospective study of 136 cases. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2003; 19:364–371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woog JJ, Dresner SC, Lee TS, Kim YD, Hartstein ME, Shore J, et al. The smooth surface tunnel porous polyethylene enucleation implant. Ophthal Surg Lasers 2005; 35:358–362.
   Google Scholar
• Huang D, Yu Y, Lu R, Yang H, Cai J. A modified evisceration technique with scleral quadrisection and porous polyethylene implantation. Am J Ophthalmol 2009; 147:924–928.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karcioglu ZA, Al-Mesfer SA, Mullaney PB. Porous polyethylene orbital implant in patients with retinoblastoma. Ophthalmology 1998; 105:1311–1316.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soares EJC, Perez-Franca V, Wykrota L, Stumpf S. Clinical evaluation of a new Bioceramic ophthalmic implant. Orbit 1995; 14:137–146.
   Google Scholar
• Jordan DR, Klapper SR, Gilberg SM, Dutton JJ, Wong A, Mawn L. The bioceramic implant: evaluation of implant exposures in 419 implants. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 26:80–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang JK, Lai PC, Liao SL. Late exposure of the bioceramic orbital implant. Am J Ophthalmol 2009; 147:162–170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar