Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Single or double? A comparison of evisceration techniques
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Single or double? A comparison of evisceration techniques
Do you wish to request the book?
Single or double? A comparison of evisceration techniques
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Single or double? A comparison of evisceration techniques
2023
Overview
Purpose
We compared the rates of implant exposure and extrusion after evisceration with single and double scleral closure techniques.
Methods
This retrospective cohort study included all patients who underwent evisceration with an implant insertion over the past 18 years at Tung Wah Eastern Hospital and Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital. Clinical documents and operation records were reviewed.
Results
A total of 81 ethnic Chinese patients (44 male) who underwent evisceration with primary implant insertion were reviewed. 39 (48%) patients underwent the double scleral closure technique with an implant placed posterior to the posterior sclera, and 42 (52%) patients underwent the single scleral closure technique with an implant inserted in the intra-scleral cavity. The follow-up interval was 70 months. The surgical indications were endophthalmitis (35%), painful blind eye (23%), traumatic disfigured globe (22%) and phthisis bulbi (20%). Silicone was the most used implant material (69%). The patients who underwent double scleral closure had a larger size of the implant (19.7 vs 17.9 mm,
p
< 0.05). Both implant exposure (26% vs 3%,
p
< 0.05) and implant extrusion (26% vs 0%,
p
< 0.05) were more common in patients who underwent single scleral.
Conclusions
Double scleral closure technique allows a larger implant, and it is associated with a lower rate of implant exposure and extrusion. The double scleral closure technique is a superior technique of choice in these patients with primary implant placement.
