TY - JOUR
T1 - Orbital implants : potential new directions
AU - Hicks, C.
AU - Morrison, D.
AU - Lou, X.
AU - Crawford, Geoffrey
AU - Gadjatsy, A.
AU - Constable, Ian
PY - 2006
Y1 - 2006
N2 - This article reviews orbital implants used to replace an eye after enucleation or evisceration. Advantages of implant placement are described, with discussion of implant and wrap material, and design features that affect clinical outcomes. Implants may be porous or nonporous, pegged for linkage with a cosmetic shell or unpegged, and may be wrapped with a covering material or tissue or unwrapped. Device shape, volume and material qualities affect tissue tolerance and the risk of exposure or extrusion. Limitations of currently available devices are discussed, with factors affecting surgeon and patient choice. Ideally, a device should be easy to insert, avoid the need for wrapping or adjunctive tissues, be light, biointegratable, comfortable after implantation and provide satisfactory orbital volume replacement, movement and cosmesis without requiring further surgery or pegging. This review briefly discusses developments in implant design and aspects of design that affect function, but is not a detailed clinical review; rather, it aims to stimulate thought on optimal design and discusses recent developments. Novel technology in the form of a prototype device with a soft, biointegratable anterior surface is described as an example of newer approaches.
AB - This article reviews orbital implants used to replace an eye after enucleation or evisceration. Advantages of implant placement are described, with discussion of implant and wrap material, and design features that affect clinical outcomes. Implants may be porous or nonporous, pegged for linkage with a cosmetic shell or unpegged, and may be wrapped with a covering material or tissue or unwrapped. Device shape, volume and material qualities affect tissue tolerance and the risk of exposure or extrusion. Limitations of currently available devices are discussed, with factors affecting surgeon and patient choice. Ideally, a device should be easy to insert, avoid the need for wrapping or adjunctive tissues, be light, biointegratable, comfortable after implantation and provide satisfactory orbital volume replacement, movement and cosmesis without requiring further surgery or pegging. This review briefly discusses developments in implant design and aspects of design that affect function, but is not a detailed clinical review; rather, it aims to stimulate thought on optimal design and discusses recent developments. Novel technology in the form of a prototype device with a soft, biointegratable anterior surface is described as an example of newer approaches.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/33845883533
U2 - 10.1586/17434440.3.6.805
DO - 10.1586/17434440.3.6.805
M3 - Article
C2 - 17280545
SN - 1743-4440
VL - 3
SP - 805
EP - 815
JO - Expert Review of Medical Devices
JF - Expert Review of Medical Devices
IS - 6
ER -