Abstract
Enucleation is indicated in unsalvageable intraocular tumors. Primary implant of adequate size should be considered to prevent socket contracture in children. Meticulous surgery, proper implant selection, optimal volume replacement, custom made prostheses, and periodic examination is needed to achieve an excellent cosmetic appearance in a growing child. Numerous research and innovations are ongoing in anophthalmic socket surgery with regard to novel biomaterials and design to improve outcome. Multidisciplinary team work with oncologist, oculoplasty surgeon, ocularist, ocular geneticist and psychologist are needed to achieve an aesthetically pleasing result in these children.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Jordan DR, Klappler SR. Chap. 18: Orbital implants. In: Clinical ophthalmic oncology, Orbital tumours. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2014. p. 209–16.
Jordan DR, Stephen R, et al. Smith and Nesi’s ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery, vol. 68. 3rd ed. New York: Springer; 2012. p. 1105–28.
Francesco B, Isabel P. Orbital implants: state-of-the-art review with emphasis on biomaterials and recent advances. J Mater Sci Eng. 2016;69:1410–28.
Custer PL, Trinkaus KM. Volumetric determination of enucleation implant size. Am J Ophthalmol. 1999;128:489–94.
Kaltreider SA, Lucarelli MJ. A simple algorithm for selection of implant size for enucleation and evisceration. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;18:336–41.
Bentley RP, Sgouros S, Natarajan K, et al. Normal changes in orbital volume during childhood. J Neurosurg. 2002;96:742–6.
Mourits DL, Moll AC, Bosscha MI, et al. Orbital implants in retinoblastoma patients: 23 years of experience and a review of the literature. Acta Ophthalmol. 2016;94:165–74.
Shields CL, Shields JA, De Potter P. Hydroxyapatite orbital implant after enucleation: experience with initial 100 consecutive cases. Arch Ophthalmol. 1992;110:333–8.
De Potter P, Shields CL, Shields JA, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of the hydroxyapatite orbital implant. Ophthalmology. 1992;99:824–30.
David S, Steven Y, Robert P. Perspective on orbital enucleation implants. Surv Ophthalmol. 2007;52:245–65.
Nentwich M, Schebitz K, et al. Dermis fat grafts as primary and secondary orbital implants. Orbit. 2014;33:33–8.
Francesco Q, Sabrina S, Pietro R, et al. Dermis-fat graft in children as primary and secondary orbital implant. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;32:214–9.
Bosniak SL, Nesi F, Smith BC, et al. A comparison of motility: autogenous dermis-fat vs synthetic spherical implants. Ophthalmic Surg. 1989;20:889–91.
Jordan DR, Anderson RL, Nerad JA. A preliminary report on the Universal Implant. Arch Ophthalmol. 1987;105:1726–31.
Huang D, Xu B, Yang Z. Fibrovascular ingrowth into porous polyethylene orbital implants (Medpor) after modified evisceration. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;31:138–42.
Naik MN, Murthy RK, Honavar SG, et al. Comparison of vascularization of Medpor and Medpor-plus orbital implants: a prospective, randomized study. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;23:463–7.
Woog JJ, Dresner SC, Lee TS, et al. The smooth surface tunnel porous polyethylene enucleation implant. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging. 2004;35:358–62.
Mahoney NR, Grant MP, Iliff NT, et al. Exposure rate of smooth surface tunnel porous polyethylene implants after enucleation. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;30:492–8.
Shevchenko L, Boss J, Shah CT. Alpha sphere as a successful ocular implant in primary enucleation and secondary orbital implant exchange. Orbit. 2013;32:161–5.
Vagefi MR, McMullan TF, Burroughs JR, et al. Orbital augmentation with injectable calcium hydroxyapatite for correction of post enucleation/evisceration socket syndrome. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;27:90–4.
David R, Steven G, Louise A. The bioceramic orbital implant: experience with 107 implants. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;19:128–35.
Tomb EH, Gearhart DF, et al. A new magnetic implant. Arch Ophthalmol. 1954;52:763–8.
Suter AJ, Molteno ACB, Bevin T, et al. Long term follow up of bone derived hydroxyapatite orbital implants. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86:1287–92.
Custer PL, Kennedy RH, Woog JJ, et al. Orbital implants in enucleation surgery: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:2054–61.
Nikolaos T, Augsburger JJ. Enucleation with unwrapped porous and nonporous orbital implants: a 15-year experience. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;21:331–6.
Kassaee A, Mohsen B, Mohammadreza P. Mersilene mesh versus sclera in wrapping hydroxyapatite orbital implants. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;22:41–4.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Umadevi, C., Mukherjee, B. (2020). Post Enucleation Orbital Implants. In: Khetan, V. (eds) Intraocular Tumors. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0395-5_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0395-5_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-0394-8
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-0395-5
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)