Coralline Hydroxyapatite Orbital Implant (Bio-Eye): Experience with 158 Patients


    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Abstract

PurposeTo assess the problems seen in 158 patients with coralline hydroxyapatite (HA) orbital implants (Bio-Eye).MethodsA consecutive case series of 170 patients receiving coralline HA implanted by two surgeons over a 5-year period were reviewed. The authors analyzed age, type of surgery, implant size, peg system, follow-up duration, time of pegging, problems encountered, and treatment.ResultsTwelve patients were lost to follow-up after 5 months, leaving 158 patients who were followed from 6 to 130 months (average, 39 months). Problems in unpegged implants occurred in 36 (22.8%) patients. Discharge occurred in 18 (11.4%) patients, implant exposure in 12 (7.6%), socket discomfort in 1 (0.6%), conjunctival thinning in 3 (1.9%), chronic conjunctival swelling in 2 (1.3%), and implant infection in 3 (1.9%). Problems after pegging occurred in 68 (50.7%) of 134 patients: discharge in 27 (20.1%), pyogenic granuloma in 24 (17.9%), conjunctiva overgrowing the peg in 4 (3.0%), implant exposure around the sleeve in 5 (3.7%), clicking in 6 (4.5%), peg on an angle in 2 (1.5%), loose sleeve in 1 (0.7%), peg falling out in 18 (13.4%), popping peg in 1 (0.7%), poor transfer of movement in 3 (2.2%), pain with movement in 1 (0.7%), and implant infection in 2 (1.5%).ConclusionsThe Bio-Eye orbital implant represents a porous orbital implant that is biocompatible with orbital tissues and allows fibrovascular ingrowth and improved motility when coupled to the overlying artificial eye. It is more expensive than other commercially available porous orbital implants, such as synthetic FCI3 HA, porous polyethylene (Medpor), and aluminum oxide (Bioceramic) implant. Problems encountered with its use are similar to those problems seen in patients with the synthetic FCI3 hydroxyapatite and aluminum oxide orbital implants.

    loading  Loading Related Articles