Comparison of Three Different Techniques on the Movement of Implants After Evisceration.

Autor:	Sendul SY; Sisli Hamidiye Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Department of Ophthalmology., Mavi Yildiz A; Bakirkoy Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital, Department of Ophthalmology., Dirim B; Sisli Hamidiye Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Department of Ophthalmology., Kacar H; Sisli Hamidiye Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Department of Ophthalmology., Yildiz AA; Medicine Private Hospital, Department of Ophthalmology, Istanbul., Demir AG; Derik State Hospital, Department of Ophthalmology, Mardin, Turkey., Karapapak M; Sisli Hamidiye Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Department of Ophthalmology., Guven D; Sisli Hamidiye Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Department of Ophthalmology.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	The Journal of craniofacial surgery [J Craniofac Surg] 2019 Oct; Vol. 30 (7), pp. e590-e593.
DOI:	10.1097/SCS.0000000000005584
Abstrakt:	Purpose: To compare the results of 3 evisceration techniques involving placement of an acrylic implant within the scleral shell without posterior sclerotomy (Group 1), posterior sclerotomy with placement of a porous implant within the intraconal space (Group 2) and posterior sclerotomy with placement of a acrylic implant within the intraconal space (Group 3) with respect to ocular mobility, implant complications and patient satisfaction. Methods: Single-center, retrospective, interventional case series. A chart review of 72 patients undergoing evisceration between February 2013 and January 2018 was carried out. Thirty-five patients met the inclusion criteria having a normal or near normal size eye and at least 6 months follow-up. The horizontal movements of the implant and the artificial eye was measured by using a ruler. Data analyses were conducted using the Mann-Whitney U test for 2 independent samples. Results: Neither infection nor prolapse of the implant had occurred in any of the patients. The mean implant sizes were 18 mm in Group 1, 20 mm in Group 2 and 20 mm in Group 3. Statistically, a significant difference was assessed between Group 1 and Group 2 in both nasal and temporal movement of the socket; nasal and temporal movement of the prosthesis. Statistically, a significant difference was assessed between Group 1 and Group 3 in both nasal and temporal movement of the socket; nasal and temporal movement of the prosthesis. However, there was no statistically significant difference between Group 2 and Group 3 in neither nasal and temporal movement of the socket nor nasal and temporal movement of the artificial eye. Conclusion: Group 1 showed the significantly better movement of both prosthesis and socket in adduction and abduction than Group 2 and 3. The likely explanation for this may be that preserving the scleral shell integrity allows more efficient transmission of muscle contraction to the socket and prosthesis.
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu