Abstract
Ocular prosthesis motility was measured and compared in 15 patients with a primary baseball implant after enucleation of an eye, in 11 patients with a secondary baseball implant, in 12 patients with an Allen implant, and in 11 patients without any intraorbital implant. In all patients a noticeable lag of movement of the prosthetic eye was measured: in the extreme directions of gaze the excursions of the prosthesis were far less in comparison with the contralateral normal eye. For normal eye movement round the primary position of gaze, however, the prosthesis motility in the primary baseball and Allen implant group appeared to be sufficient to give a lifelike appearance. The average motility of the prostheses in these two groups did not differ. The motility in the secondary baseball group and in the group without an implant was evidently worse. In the last group the prosthesis motility was most impaired. We conclude that the insertion of an implant, even when inserted some time after the enucleation (a secondary implant), improves the motility of the prosthesis markedly. We recommend the primary baseball implant as the correction of choice after enucleation.
Full text
PDF
Images in this article
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- ALLEN J. H., ALLEN L. A buried muscle cone implant. Development of a tunneled hemispherical type. Arch Ophthal. 1950 May;43(5):879–890. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1950.00910010894013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- BARTLETT R. E., LEWIS F. EVALUATION OF ENUCLEATIONS AND EVISCERATIONS. Am J Ophthalmol. 1964 Nov;58:835–839. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bosniak S. L., Nesi F., Smith B. C., Schechter B., Cote R. A comparison of motility: autogenous dermis-fat vs synthetic spherical implants. Ophthalmic Surg. 1989 Dec;20(12):889–891. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- GUYTON J. S. Orbital implants after enucleation; procedures and physiologic factors. Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol. 1952 Jan-Feb;56(1):21–24. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nunery W. R., Hetzler K. J. Improved prosthetic motility following enucleation. Ophthalmology. 1983 Sep;90(9):1110–1115. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(83)80054-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sassmannshausen J., Bornfeld N., Kluge A., Sauerwein W., Härting F., Wessing A. Enucleation combined with orbital implants for malignant melanoma of the uvea. Int Ophthalmol. 1989 Jul;13(4):243–251. doi: 10.1007/BF02280083. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Smit T. J., Koornneef L., Zonneveld F. W., Groet E., Otto A. J. Computed tomography in the assessment of the postenucleation socket syndrome. Ophthalmology. 1990 Oct;97(10):1347–1351. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(90)32411-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Smit T. J., Koornneef L., Zonneveld F. W., Groet E., Otto A. J. Primary and secondary implants in the anophthalmic orbit. Preoperative and postoperative computed tomographic appearance. Ophthalmology. 1991 Jan;98(1):106–110. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(91)32351-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- TROUTMAN R. C. Five-year survey on use of a magnetic implant for improving cosmetic result of enucleation. AMA Arch Ophthalmol. 1954 Jul;52(1):58–62. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1954.00920050060006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Tyers A. G., Collin J. R. Baseball orbital implants: a review of 39 patients. Br J Ophthalmol. 1985 Jun;69(6):438–442. doi: 10.1136/bjo.69.6.438. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]