Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Orbital implants: potential new directions.

Celia R Hicks1, David Morrison, Xia Lou

  • 1Department Biomaterials and Polymer Research, Lions Eye Institute, and Research Ophthalmologist, Centre for Ophthalmology and Visual Science, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Australia. crhicks@cyllene.uwa.edu.au

Expert Review of Medical Devices
|February 7, 2007
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

A Biocompatible ZIF-8 Spray and Its Long-Lasting Antibiosis.

Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland)·2026
Same author

Macrophage Iron Metabolism Mediates Immunometabolic Reprogramming and Tissue Homeostasis: From Molecular Mechanisms to Clinical Translation.

Cells·2026
Same author

Cross-Linked Sodium Hyaluronate Filler Containing Poly-L-Lactic Acid-b-Poly (Ethylene Glycol) Microspheres for Periorbital Rejuvenation: A Multimodal Assessment of Physicochemical, Preclinical, and Clinical Performance.

Journal of cosmetic dermatology·2026
Same author

European expert consensus on cancer recurrence and progression data collection by population based cancer registries.

Cancer epidemiology·2026
Same author

A Retrospective Case Series Reporting the Safety of a Polyvinyl Alcohol (PVA) Composite Filler for Facial Augmentation.

Journal of cosmetic dermatology·2026
Same author

Protocol for the PROSECCA study: a new approach for predicting radiotherapy outcome using artificial intelligence and electronic population-based healthcare data.

BMJ open·2026
Same journal

Two sides to every wrist: trans-ulnar access for cardiac interventions.

Expert review of medical devices·2026
Same journal

Comparative review of coronary CT angiography versus conventional catheter angiography: diagnostic value, clinical outcomes, and underlying technical principles.

Expert review of medical devices·2026
Same journal

Assessing the MYNX CONTROL arterial vascular closure device after catheterization procedures that enter the body through the femoral arteries.

Expert review of medical devices·2026
Same journal

Efficacy of two anatomically preformed supraglottic devices, the BlockBuster Laryngeal mask airway and the Ambu AuraGain, for ventilation in anesthetised paralyzed pediatric patients: a randomized trial.

Expert review of medical devices·2026
Same journal

Prismatic treatment combined with binocular visual training for intermittent exotropia: impact on visual function and quality of life.

Expert review of medical devices·2026
Same journal

Methodological concerns in the comparative evaluation of PORTs and PICCs: limitations of indirect evidence synthesis in a recent meta-analysis.

Expert review of medical devices·2026
See all related articles

Orbital implants replace eyes after surgery. This review discusses implant designs, materials, and features influencing outcomes, aiming for better integration and cosmesis.

Area of Science:

  • Ophthalmology
  • Biomaterials Science
  • Medical Device Design

Background:

  • Orbital implants are crucial for restoring appearance and function after eye removal (enucleation or evisceration).
  • Current implants vary in porosity, fixation (pegged/unpegged), and wrapping, each impacting clinical results.
  • Factors like shape, volume, and material influence tissue integration, stability, and complication rates (e.g., exposure, extrusion).

Purpose of the Study:

  • To review current orbital implant technologies for post-enucleation/evisceration reconstruction.
  • To discuss design features, materials, and their effects on clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction.
  • To explore limitations of existing devices and highlight novel approaches for improved orbital implant design.

Main Methods:

Related Experiment Videos

  • Review of existing literature and product information on orbital implants.
  • Analysis of implant characteristics: porosity, pegging, wrapping materials, shape, and volume.
  • Discussion of factors influencing surgeon and patient choices, and clinical performance.

    • Main Results:

    • Implant characteristics significantly affect tissue tolerance, risk of exposure, and extrusion.
    • Porous implants may offer better biointegration, while pegged designs facilitate cosmetic shell attachment.
    • Ideal implants should be easily inserted, biointegratable, lightweight, comfortable, and provide excellent cosmetic and functional results without further surgery.

    Conclusions:

    • Orbital implant design is critical for successful ocular prosthetics after eye removal.
    • Future developments focus on biointegration, ease of use, and improved aesthetic and functional outcomes.
    • Novel materials and designs, such as those with soft, biointegratable anterior surfaces, represent promising advancements.