Enucleation and evisceration – techniques and indications

Article Sidebar

PDF (Język Polski)


Published: Dec 31, 2015
Keywords:
enucleaton, evlsceration, techniques, indications

Main Article Content

Marek E. Prost
Klinika Okulistyczna, Wojskowy Instytut Medycyny Lotniczej w Warszawie

Abstract

In the paper the problems of eyeball removal (cosmetic, post-enucleation socket syndrome, post-operative prostheses mobility and conjunctival atrophy) are described and advantages and disadvantages of different surgical methods of eyeball removal (enucleation, evisceration) are discussed. The choice of surgical method depending on indication for eyeball removal is also discussed.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
1.
Prost ME. Enucleation and evisceration – techniques and indications. Ophthatherapy [Internet]. 2015Dec.31 [cited 2024Nov.22];2(4):292-8. Available from: https://journalsmededu.pl/index.php/ophthatherapy/article/view/657
Issue
Vol 2 No 4 (2015)
Section
Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Copyright: © Medical Education sp. z o.o. License allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.

Address reprint requests to: Medical Education, Marcin Kuźma (marcin.kuzma@mededu.pl)

References

1. Phan LT, Hwang TN, McCulley TJ. Evisceration in the modern age. MEAJO. 2012; 19: 24-33.
2. Green WR, Maumenee AE, Sanders TE et al. Sympathetic uveitis following evisceration. Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol. 1972; 76: 625-44.
3. Prost M. Wszczepy oczodołowe w leczeniu poenukleacyjnego zespołu oczodołu. Okulistyka. 2008; XI: 13-9.
4. Culler AM. Orbital implants after enucleation; basic principles of anatomy and physiology of the orbit and relation to implant surgery. Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol. 1952; 56: 17-20.
5. Smit TJ, Koornneef L, Zonneveld FW. Computed tomography in the assessment of the postenucleation socket syndrome. Ophthalmology. 1990; 97: 1347-51.
6. Tyers AG, Collin JR. Orbital implants and post enucleation socket syndrome. Trans Ophthalmol Soc UK. 1982; 102(1): 90-2.
7. Mules PH. Evisceration of the globe with artificial vitreous. Trans Ophthalmol Soc UK. 1885; 5: 200-6.
8. Kelley JJ. History of ocular prosthesis. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 1970; 10: 713-9.
9. Sami D, Young S, Petersen R. Perspective on orbital enucleation implants. Surv Ophthalmol. 2001; 52: 244-65.
10. Chalasani R, Poole-Warren L, Conway RM et al. Porous implants in enucleation: a systematic review. Surv Ophthalmol. 2007; 52: 145-55.
11. Bigham WJ, Stanley P, Cahill JM. Fibrovascular ingrowth in porous orbital implants: the effect of the material composition, porosity, growth factors, and coatings. Ophthal Plast Resconstr Surg. 1999; 15: 317-25.
12. Rubin PA, Popham JK, Bilyk JR et al. Comparison of fibrovascular ingrowth into hydroxyapatite and porous polyethylene orbital implants. Ophthal Plast Resconstr Surg. 1994; 10: 96-103.
13. Hing KA, Best SM, Tanner KE et al. Mediation of bone ingrowth in porous hydroxyapatite bone graft substitutes. J Biomed Mater Res. 2004; 68: 187-200.
14. De Potter P, Shields CI, Shields JA et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of the hydroxyapatite orbital implant. Ophthalmology. 1992; 99: 824-30.
15. Prost ME. Ewisceracja gałki – powrót dawnej metody leczenia chirurgicznego. Referat wygłoszony na XLVI Zjeździe Okulistów Polskich, Poznań 18–20.06.2015.