Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
To implant or not to implant: emergency orbital eviscerations with primary orbital implants
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?
To implant or not to implant: emergency orbital eviscerations with primary orbital implants
Do you wish to request the book?
To implant or not to implant: emergency orbital eviscerations with primary orbital implants
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
To implant or not to implant: emergency orbital eviscerations with primary orbital implants
2021
Overview
Background/ObjectivesTo evaluate the outcomes of orbital evisceration with primary implant placement in acutely infected/inflamed eyes, using implant exposure/extrusion as a surrogate of success. To contextualise this with previously published literature.Subjects/MethodsA retrospective case series of all patients with acutely infected/inflamed eyes undergoing urgent orbital evisceration with primary implants, at a British tertiary centre between January 2006 and August 2018. A systematic literature review of orbital eviscerations with primary implant placement in acute endophthalmitis/infection and recent trauma.ResultsTwenty-six eyes were eviscerated in the context of acute infection/inflammation. Twenty-four eyes had primary orbital implants. Indications for evisceration included endophthalmitis (18/26, 69%), microbial keratitis with corneal perforation (4/26, 15%), non-infectious corneal perforation (3/26, 12%), and recent trauma (1/26, 4.8%). The implants used were acrylic (15/24, 63%), MEDPOR (5/24, 21%), and silicone (4/24, 17%). The follow-up period was 15 months to 14 years. Implant exposure occurred in two (8.3%), managed with implant exchange and scleral reformation in one, and implant removal with dermis fat grafting in the other. One patient (4.2%) had conjunctival wound dehiscence with spontaneous healing. Six (25%) required further surgery for minor complications as follows: conjunctival prolapse, upper lid ptosis with slight sulcus loss, lower lid entropion with shortened fornix, and lower lid ectropion. The systematic literature review showed that the mean rate of orbital implant exposure/extrusion in this subset of patients was 7.8% (95% CI: 2.7%, 12.9%, SD 8.0%), range 0–27%.ConclusionsIn acutely infected/inflamed eyes, the implant exposure/extrusion rate following orbital evisceration with primary implant placement is acceptable.
Publisher
Nature Publishing Group
Subject
We currently cannot retrieve any items related to this title. Kindly check back at a later time.