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.
- Anophthalmic socket
- Secondary anophthalmic implant
- Silicone sphere
ASJC Scopus subject areas