Similar articles

Abstract: Objective: To investigate the effects and complications of primary and secondary placements of motility coupling post (MCP) in the unwrapped porous polyethylene orbital implant (PPOI) following enucleation. Methods: We investigated 198 patients who received PPOI implantation following the standard enucleation procedure in the First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China, from 2002 to 2004. These patients were subgrouped into PPOI-only patients (112 cases, received PPOI following enucleation), primary MCP patients (46 cases, received primary placement of MCP during PPOI operation), and secondary MCP patients (40 cases, received secondary placement of MCP 6 months after the initial surgery). Effects and complications among these three groups were compared. Results: The PPOI-only patients took shorter treatment course when compared with other two MCP groups (P<0.001), without significant difference noted between the two MCP groups. However, the two MCP groups had better prosthetic motility than PPOI-only group (P<0.001), without significant difference between the two MCP groups. In the early stage, 2 eyes in the PPOI-only group and 1 eye in the primary MCP group had PPOI infection. In PPOI-only group, 3 (2.68%) eyes had PPOI exposure, which occurred after fitting the prostheses; 4 eyes (8.70%) in primary MCP group and 1 eye (2.50%) in secondary MCP had PPOI exposure, which occurred before fitting the prostheses. After prosthesis was fit successfully, the excessive discharge and granuloma were 33.9% and 1.79% in PPOI group-only, 53.3% and 8.9% in primary MCP group, and 52.5% and 7.5% in secondary MCP group, respectively. Conclusion: Both primary and secondary placements of MCP into the PPOI following enucleation can help patients to obtain desirable prosthetic motility, but may be associated with more complications. The primary placement of MCP with skilled operation in selected patients is more recommendable than secondary placement.

[1] Alwitry, A., West, S., King, J., Foss, A.J., Abercrombie, L.C., 2007. Long-term follow-up of porous polyethylene spherical implants after enucleation and evisceration. Ophthal. Plast. Reconstr. Surg., 23(1):11-15.

[2] Chen, Y.H., Cui, H.G., 2006. High density porous polyethylene material (Medpor) as an unwrapped orbital implant. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. B, 7(8):679-682.

[3] Cheng, M.S., Liao, S.L., Lin, L.L., 2004. Late porous polyethylene implant exposure after motility coupling post placement. Am. J. Ophthalmol., 138(3):420-424.

[4] Guillinta, P., Vasani, S.N., Granet, D.B., Kikkawa, D.O., 2003. Prosthetic motility in pegged versus unpegged integrated porous orbital implants. Ophthal. Plast. Reconstr. Surg., 19(2):119-122.

[5] Hsu, W.C., Green, J.P., Spilker, M.H., Rubin, P.A., 2000. Primary placement of a titanium motility post in a porous polyethylene orbital implant: animal model with quantitative assessment of fibrovascular ingrowth and vascular density. Ophthal. Plast. Reconstr. Surg., 16(5):370-379.

[6] Jordan, D.R., 2001. Spontaneous loosening of hydroxyapatite peg sleeves. Ophthalmology, 108(11):2041-2044.

[7] Jordan, D.R., Chan, S., Mawn, L., Gilberg, S., Dean, T., Brownstein, S., Hill, V.E., 1999. Complications associated with pegging hydroxyapatite orbital implants. Ophthalmology, 106(3):505-512.

[8] Karslioglu, S., Serin, D., Simsek, I., Ziylan, S., 2006. Implant infection in porous orbital implants. Ophthal. Plast. Reconstr. Surg., 22(6):461-466.

[9] Kostick, D.A., Linberg, J.V., 1995. Evisceration with hydroxyapatite implant. Surgical technique and review of 31 case reports. Ophthalmology, 102:1542-1548.

[10] Lin, C.J., Liao, S.L., Jou, J.R., Jou, J.R., Kao, S.C., Hou, P.K., Chen, M.S., 2002. Complications of motility peg placement for porous hydroxyapatite orbital implants. Br. J. Ophthalmol., 86(4):394-396.

[11] Raizada, K., Shome, D., Honavar, S.G., 2007. New measurement device and technique for assessing implant and prosthetic motility. Ophthal. Plast. Reconstr. Surg., 23(1):59-60.

[12] Rubin, P.A., Fay, A.M., Remulla, H.D., 2000. Primary placement of a motility coupling post in porous polyethylene orbital implants. Arch. Ophthalmol., 118:826-832.

[13] Shields, C.L., Shields, J.A., de Potter, P., Singh, A.D., 1994. Problems with the hydroxyapatite orbital implant: experience with 250 consecutive cases. Br. J. Ophthalmol., 78(9):702-706.

[14] Tawfik, H.A., Dutton, J.J., 2004. Primary peg placement in evisceration with the spherical porous polyethylene orbital implant. Ophthalmology, 111(7):1401-1406.

[15] Trichopoulos, N., Augsburger, J.J., 2005. Enucleation with unwrapped porous and nonporous orbital implants: a 15-year experience. Ophthal. Plast. Reconstr. Surg., 21(5):331-336.

[16] Yazici, B., Akova, B., Sanli, O., 2007. Complications of primary placement of motility post in porous polyethylene implants during enucleation. Am. J. Ophthalmol., 143(5):828-834.