Orbital Implants in Enucleation Surgery: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology
Edward J Wladis1, Vinay K Aakalu2, Rachel K Sobel3
1Ophthalmic Plastic Surgery, Lions Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Albany Medical Center, Albany (Slingerlands), New York.
Purpose:
To compare the motility and complication rates of porous and nonporous implants after enucleation surgery.
Methods:
Literature searches of the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were last performed in February 2017 to identify studies published between 2003 and 2017 on outcomes after enucleation surgeries in which a variety implants were used. The searches were limited to the English language with abstracts and yielded 43 articles, which the Ophthalmic Technology Assessment Committee Oculoplastics and Orbit Panel reviewed for relevancy. Twenty-five articles were considered to have met the search strategy, and the panel methodologist assigned ratings to them according to the level of evidence.
Results:
Only 2 of the 25 articles identified met the criteria for level I evidence. Eighteen of the studies did not assess motility after enucleation surgery, and the 7 that did evaluate this metric involved porous implants. The studies that analyzed this outcome reported favorable results, but the results were not uniformly based on objective analysis. Both porous and nonporous implants were well tolerated, and complication rates were generally low for both types.
Conclusions:
In keeping with increasing surgeon preference for porous implants, most studies identified in this literature search involved the use of this type of implant. These implants resulted in excellent motility after enucleation surgery, although many studies did not assess this outcome. Regardless of implant type, major complications were rare, and infection was exceptionally uncommon after enucleation. Given the paucity of data on motility and the absence of direct, objective comparisons of porous and nonporous implants, definitive conclusions about the impact of implant material on motility cannot be made. Since few studies evaluated nonporous implants, direct comparisons cannot be made definitively between implant types, and future investigations are needed to enable a critical assessment.
