Clinical Results of Porous Polyethylene Orbital Implants in Postenucleation Retinoblastoma Patients.
- Author:
Jong Hyun KIM
1
;
Sang In KHWARG
;
Young Suk YU
Author Information
1. Department of Ophthalmology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Korea. khwarg@snu.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Anophthalmic socket;
Exposure;
Medpor(R);
Porous polyethylene orbital implant;
Retinoblastoma
- MeSH:
Child;
Follow-Up Studies;
Humans;
Medical Records;
Orbit*;
Orbital Implants*;
Parents;
Polyethylene*;
Prostheses and Implants;
Retinoblastoma*;
Retrospective Studies;
Transplants
- From:Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society
2002;43(8):1487-1495
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To report the clinical results of implantation of porous polyethylene orbital implant (Medpor(R))after enucleation of eyes in patients with retinoblastoma. METHODS: The medical records of 33 children who had undergone Medpor(R) implantation after enucleation of eyes in patients with retinoblastoma were reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: Surgery was performed in 33 eyes of 33 patients. The mean age at the time of operation was 24 months (ranged from 2 to 85 months). The mean follow-up period was 20 months (ranged from 12 to 31months). The diameters of the orbital implant used were 18 mm in 20 patients, and 20 mm in 13 patients. All parents were satisfied with the motility and cosmesis of the prosthesis. Exposure of the porous polyethylene orbital implant was found in 11 eyes (33.3%) at the mean postoperative time of 15 months (ranged from 7 to 29 months). The implant exposures in 10 eyes were not responsive to supportive therapy and underwent subconjunctival scleral patch grafts and direct conjunctival closure with success. The small exposure of the remaining eye was spontaneously healed under a careful observation with supportive therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Medpor(R) implantation in children with retinoblastoma showed good surgical results. However, careful follow-up examination is needed due to potential conjunctival pressure erosion and implant exposure. If exposure of the implant does occur, active surgical management is suggested instead of supportive management.
