These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Orbital implants insertion to improve ocular prostheses motility.
    Author: Goiato MC, Haddad MF, dos Santos DM, Pesqueira AA, Ribeiro Pdo P, Moreno A.
    Journal: J Craniofac Surg; 2010 May; 21(3):870-5. PubMed ID: 20485072.
    Abstract:
    The objectives of this study were, through a literature review, to point the differences between orbital implants and their advantages and disadvantages, to evaluate prosthesis motility after orbital implants are inserted, and to point the implant wrapping current risks. Sixty-seven articles were reviewed. Enucleation implants can be autoplastics or alloplastics and porous (including natural and synthetic hydroxyapatite [HA]) or nonporous (silicone). Hydroxyapatite is the most related in the literature, but it has disadvantages, too, that is, all orbital implants must be wrapped. Exposure of the porous orbital implant can be repaired using different materials, which include homologous tissue, as well as autogenous graft, xenograft, and synthetic material mesh. The most used materials are HA and porous polyethylene orbital implant. The HA implant is expensive and possibly subject corals to damage, different from porous polyethylene orbital implants. Porous implants show the best prosthesis motility and a minimum rate of implants extrusion. Implant wraps can facilitate smoother entry of the implant into the orbit and allow reattachment of extraocular muscles. They also serve as a barrier between the overlying soft tissue and the rough surface of the implant, protecting implants from exposure or erosion.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]