Exposure rate of hydroxyapatite spheres in the anophthalmic socket: Histopathologic correlation and comparison with silicone sphere implants

William R. Nunery, Grant W. Heinz, Jose Bonnin, Ronald T. Martin, Mark A. Cepela

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

178 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We retrospectively reviewed enucleations and secondary anophthalmic socket sphere implantations for a 3 year period. We compared the incidence of exposure of hydroxyapatite implants to the incidence of exposure of silicone implants. We found that the incidence of hydroxyapatite exposure following enucleation was 3 of 27 (11.1%), and following secondary anophthalmic socket implantation was 3 of 32 (9.4%). The incidence of silicone sphere exposure following enucleation was 0 of 48 (0%), and following secondary implantation was 1 of 30 (3.3%). The difference in exposure rate between hydroxyapatite and silicone reached statistical significance in the enucleation group (p = 0.043) and in the combined enucleation and secondary implantation group (p = 0.033), but not in the secondary implantation group when considered separately. Osteoinduction and fibrovascular infiltration were found in all hydroxyapatite specimens examined histopathologi-cally. In the exposed implants, liquefaction necrosis of the implant occurred. In the nonexposed implant, complete fibrovascular ingrowth was noted at 7 months. We believe that the hydroxyapatite anophthalmic sphere is associated with a higher incidence of exposure and postoperative inflammation when compared to silicone anophthalmic spheres. Patient selection and technique modification may reduce the incidence of hydroxyapatite implant exposure.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)96-104
Number of pages9
JournalOphthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Volume9
Issue number2
StatePublished - 1993

Fingerprint

Silicones
Durapatite
Incidence
Patient Selection
Necrosis
Inflammation

Keywords

  • Anophthalmic socket
  • Enucleation
  • Hydroxyapatite
  • Secondary anophthalmic implant
  • Silicone sphere

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology
  • Surgery

Cite this

Exposure rate of hydroxyapatite spheres in the anophthalmic socket : Histopathologic correlation and comparison with silicone sphere implants. / Nunery, William R.; Heinz, Grant W.; Bonnin, Jose; Martin, Ronald T.; Cepela, Mark A.

In: Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1993, p. 96-104.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{18e3f3f1fe274941a045269c598893fa,
title = "Exposure rate of hydroxyapatite spheres in the anophthalmic socket: Histopathologic correlation and comparison with silicone sphere implants",
abstract = "We retrospectively reviewed enucleations and secondary anophthalmic socket sphere implantations for a 3 year period. We compared the incidence of exposure of hydroxyapatite implants to the incidence of exposure of silicone implants. We found that the incidence of hydroxyapatite exposure following enucleation was 3 of 27 (11.1{\%}), and following secondary anophthalmic socket implantation was 3 of 32 (9.4{\%}). The incidence of silicone sphere exposure following enucleation was 0 of 48 (0{\%}), and following secondary implantation was 1 of 30 (3.3{\%}). The difference in exposure rate between hydroxyapatite and silicone reached statistical significance in the enucleation group (p = 0.043) and in the combined enucleation and secondary implantation group (p = 0.033), but not in the secondary implantation group when considered separately. Osteoinduction and fibrovascular infiltration were found in all hydroxyapatite specimens examined histopathologi-cally. In the exposed implants, liquefaction necrosis of the implant occurred. In the nonexposed implant, complete fibrovascular ingrowth was noted at 7 months. We believe that the hydroxyapatite anophthalmic sphere is associated with a higher incidence of exposure and postoperative inflammation when compared to silicone anophthalmic spheres. Patient selection and technique modification may reduce the incidence of hydroxyapatite implant exposure.",
keywords = "Anophthalmic socket, Enucleation, Hydroxyapatite, Secondary anophthalmic implant, Silicone sphere",
author = "Nunery, {William R.} and Heinz, {Grant W.} and Jose Bonnin and Martin, {Ronald T.} and Cepela, {Mark A.}",
year = "1993",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
pages = "96--104",
journal = "Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery",
issn = "0740-9303",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Exposure rate of hydroxyapatite spheres in the anophthalmic socket

T2 - Histopathologic correlation and comparison with silicone sphere implants

AU - Nunery, William R.

AU - Heinz, Grant W.

AU - Bonnin, Jose

AU - Martin, Ronald T.

AU - Cepela, Mark A.

PY - 1993

Y1 - 1993

N2 - We retrospectively reviewed enucleations and secondary anophthalmic socket sphere implantations for a 3 year period. We compared the incidence of exposure of hydroxyapatite implants to the incidence of exposure of silicone implants. We found that the incidence of hydroxyapatite exposure following enucleation was 3 of 27 (11.1%), and following secondary anophthalmic socket implantation was 3 of 32 (9.4%). The incidence of silicone sphere exposure following enucleation was 0 of 48 (0%), and following secondary implantation was 1 of 30 (3.3%). The difference in exposure rate between hydroxyapatite and silicone reached statistical significance in the enucleation group (p = 0.043) and in the combined enucleation and secondary implantation group (p = 0.033), but not in the secondary implantation group when considered separately. Osteoinduction and fibrovascular infiltration were found in all hydroxyapatite specimens examined histopathologi-cally. In the exposed implants, liquefaction necrosis of the implant occurred. In the nonexposed implant, complete fibrovascular ingrowth was noted at 7 months. We believe that the hydroxyapatite anophthalmic sphere is associated with a higher incidence of exposure and postoperative inflammation when compared to silicone anophthalmic spheres. Patient selection and technique modification may reduce the incidence of hydroxyapatite implant exposure.

AB - We retrospectively reviewed enucleations and secondary anophthalmic socket sphere implantations for a 3 year period. We compared the incidence of exposure of hydroxyapatite implants to the incidence of exposure of silicone implants. We found that the incidence of hydroxyapatite exposure following enucleation was 3 of 27 (11.1%), and following secondary anophthalmic socket implantation was 3 of 32 (9.4%). The incidence of silicone sphere exposure following enucleation was 0 of 48 (0%), and following secondary implantation was 1 of 30 (3.3%). The difference in exposure rate between hydroxyapatite and silicone reached statistical significance in the enucleation group (p = 0.043) and in the combined enucleation and secondary implantation group (p = 0.033), but not in the secondary implantation group when considered separately. Osteoinduction and fibrovascular infiltration were found in all hydroxyapatite specimens examined histopathologi-cally. In the exposed implants, liquefaction necrosis of the implant occurred. In the nonexposed implant, complete fibrovascular ingrowth was noted at 7 months. We believe that the hydroxyapatite anophthalmic sphere is associated with a higher incidence of exposure and postoperative inflammation when compared to silicone anophthalmic spheres. Patient selection and technique modification may reduce the incidence of hydroxyapatite implant exposure.

KW - Anophthalmic socket

KW - Enucleation

KW - Hydroxyapatite

KW - Secondary anophthalmic implant

KW - Silicone sphere

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0027235625&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0027235625&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 8391837

AN - SCOPUS:0027235625

VL - 9

SP - 96

EP - 104

JO - Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

JF - Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

SN - 0740-9303

IS - 2

ER -