Abstract
Background
To study a new surgical option of primary placement of a titanium sleeve into hydroxyapatite implants during enucleation or evisceration.
Methods
A standard enucleation or cornea preserved evisceration was performed, followed by preplacement of a titanium sleeve into the hydroxyapatite implant by a hand drill sleeve driver. Care must be taken to ensure that the titanium sleeve is positioned centrally when the implant is put inside the orbital socket or eviscerated shell. The Tenon capsule and conjunctiva were meticulously closed with minimal tension. Complications such as sleeve exposure, coralline exposure, and infection of the titanium sleeve were closely observed.
Results
In all, 30 patients were treated in the above fashion with 10 enucleation and 20 evisceration procedures. The follow-up period ranged from 9 to 24 months. Three of the sleeves were found to have exposed spontaneously at 5 and 7 weeks following original surgery. They had no further complication except one sleeve loosening. The remaining 27 sleeves that did not spontaneously expose pursued secondary exposure of the titanium sleeve and peg insertion by conjunctival cutdown procedure 3 months after original surgery. Two sleeves were found to be oblique positioned after the conjunctival cutdown procedure. Fortunately, all the 30 patients were successfully fit with a peg-coupled prosthesis with good motility.
Conclusions
Primary placement of a titanium sleeve into hydroxyapatite implants has several advantages, including high patient acceptance, technical simplicity, and office-based conjunctival cutdown pegging procedure. By avoiding the expense of postoperative imaging study and additional prosthetic modification, a more rapid and efficient rehabilitation is possible.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Perry AC . Integrated orbital implants. Adv Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 1990; 8: 75–81.
Dutton JJ . Coralline hydroxyapatite as an ocular implant. Ophthalmology 1991; 98: 370–377.
Jordan DR, Gilberg S, Mawn L, Brownstein S, Grahovac SZ . The synthetic hydroxyapatite implant: a report on 65 patients. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 1998; 14: 250–255.
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: 77–88.
Jordan DR . Anophthalmic orbital implants. Ophthalmol Clin North Am 2000; 13: 587–608.
Remulla HD, Rubin PAD, Shore JW, Sutula FC, Townsend DJ, Woog JJ et al. Complications of porous spherical orbital implants. Ophthalmology 1995; 102: 586–593.
Jordan DR, Chan S, Mawn L, Gilberg S, Dean T, Brownstein S et al. Complications associated with pegging hydroxyapatite orbital implants. Ophthalmology 1999; 106: 505–512.
Hsu WC, Green JP, Spilker MH, Rubin PA . Primary placement of a titanium motility post in a porous orbital implant: animal model with quantitative assessment of fibrovascular ingrowths and vascular density. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000; 16: 370–379.
Rubin PAD, Fay AM, Remulla HD . Primary placement of a motility coupling post in porous polyethylene orbital implants. Arch Ophthalmol 2000; 118: 826–832.
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: 702–706.
De Potter P, Shields CL, Shields JA, Singh AD . Use of the hydroxyapatite ocular implant in the pediatric population. Arch Ophthalmol 1994; 112: 208–212.
Massy GG, Holds JB . Coralline hydroxyapatite spheres secondary orbital implants in anophthalmos. Ophthalmology 1995; 102: 161–166.
Shields CL, Shields JA, De Potter P . Hydroxyapatite orbital implant after enucleation: experience with initial 100 consecutive cases. Arch Ophthalmol 1992; 110: 333–338.
Shields CL, Shields JA, Eagle Jr RC, De Potter P . Histopathologic evidence of fibrovascular ingrowth four weeks after placement of the hydroxyapatite orbital implant. Am J Ophthalmol 1991; 111: 363–366.
Baumgarten D, Wojno T, Taylor Jr A . Evaluation of biomatrix hydroxyapatite ocular implants with technetium-99m-MDP. J Nucl Med 1993; 34: 467–468.
De Potter P, Shields C, Shields J, Flanders AE, Rao VM . Role of magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of the hydroxyapatite orbital implant. Ophthalmology 1992; 99: 824–830.
Edelstein C, Shields CL, De Potter P, Shields JA . Complications of motility peg placement for the hydroxyapatite orbital implant. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 1616–1621.
Chun-Ju Lin, Shu-Lang Liao, Jieh-Ren Jou, Kao SC, Hou PK, Chen MS . Complications of motility peg placement for porous hydroxyapatite orbital implants. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002; 86: 394–396.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This paper was presented at the American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery meeting 2002 as a poster.
All authors do not have any financial interest on the materials discussed in this manuscript.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Liao, S., Chen, M. & Lin, LK. Primary Placement of a Titanium Sleeve in Hydroxyapatite Orbital Implants. Eye 19, 400–405 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.eye.6701509
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.eye.6701509
