Comparison of 3 Different Techniques on the Movement of the Implants After Evisceration

• Published in: The Journal of craniofacial surgery
• Main Authors: Sendul, Selam Yekta, Mavi Yildiz, Aysegul, Dirim, Burcu, Kacar, Hakan, Yildiz, Ali Atakhan, Demir, Atilla Gokce, Karapapak, Murat, Guven, Dilek
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 30.05.2019
• ISSN: 1536-3732

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. 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. 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. Group 1 showed the significantly better movement of both prosthesis and socket in adduction and abduction than Group 2 and 3. The likely explanation of for this may be that preserving the scleral shell integrity allows more efficient transmission of muscle contraction to the socket and prosthesis.