Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The British Journal of Ophthalmology logoLink to The British Journal of Ophthalmology
. 1990 Sep;74(9):545–550. doi: 10.1136/bjo.74.9.545

The volume-deficient orbit: clinical characteristics, surgical management, and results after extraperiorbital implantation of Silastic block.

G E Rose 1, H Sigurdsson 1, R Collin 1
PMCID: PMC1042205  PMID: 2393645

Abstract

The surgical techniques and results after extraperiorbital implantation of Silastic on the orbital floor of 70 patients are reviewed. In 11 patients the implant was through a subciliary approach and in 59 through an inferolateral cantholysis. The inferolateral cantholysis, a simplification of the McCord and Moses approach to the orbital floor, is particularly suited to this application. The implanted Silastic was retained in 66 patients, with an average follow up of 3.5 years (range less than 1 to 9.5 years), though six required surgery to debulk the anterior end of the implant. Further surgery was required in 27 patients, this generally being to correct the position of either the upper or the lower lid. Volume enhancement was effective in most cases, there being a significant reduction in the degree of recession of the prosthesis and the depth of the unsightly sunken sulci of the upper and lower lids. The mobility of the orbital contents, the prosthesis, and the upper lid was not improved.

Full text

PDF
545

Images in this article

545Image
on p.545
546Image
on p.546
546Image
on p.546
549Image
on p.549

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Frueh B. R., Felker G. V. Baseball implant. A method of secondary insertion of an intraorbital implant. Arch Ophthalmol. 1976 Mar;94(3):429–430. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1976.03910030209007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Guberina C., Hornblass A., Meltzer M. A., Soarez V., Smith B. Autogenous dermis-fat orbital implantation. Arch Ophthalmol. 1983 Oct;101(10):1586–1590. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1983.01040020588018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. McCord C. D., Jr, Moses J. L. Exposure of the inferior orbit with fornix incision and lateral canthotomy. Ophthalmic Surg. 1979 Jun;10(6):53–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Neuhaus R. W., Shorr N. The use of room temperature vulcanizing silicone in anophthalmic enophthalmos. Am J Ophthalmol. 1982 Sep;94(3):408–411. doi: 10.1016/0002-9394(82)90370-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Smith B., Bosniak S. L., Lisman R. D. An autogenous kinetic dermis-fat orbital implant: an updated technique. Ophthalmology. 1982 Sep;89(9):1067–1071. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(82)34690-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Smith B., Petrelli R. Dermis-fat graft as a movable implant within the muscle cone. Am J Ophthalmol. 1978 Jan;85(1):62–66. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9394(14)76666-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Soll D. B. Correction of the superior lid sulcus with subperiosteal implants. Arch Ophthalmol. 1971 Feb;85(2):188–190. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1971.00990050190012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Soll D. B. The anophthalmic socket. Ophthalmology. 1982 May;89(5):407–423. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(82)34774-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Spivey B. E., Allen L., Stewart W. B. Surgical correction of superior sulcus deformity occurring after enucleation. Am J Ophthalmol. 1976 Sep;82(3):365–370. doi: 10.1016/0002-9394(76)90485-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Tyers A. G., Collin J. R. Orbital implants and post enucleation socket syndrome. Trans Ophthalmol Soc U K. 1982 Apr;102(Pt 1):90–92. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Vistnes L. M., Paris G. L. Uses of RTV silicone in orbital reconstruction. Am J Ophthalmol. 1977 Apr;83(4):577–581. doi: 10.1016/0002-9394(77)90570-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The British Journal of Ophthalmology are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES