The use of vicryl mesh in 200 porous orbital implants: a technique with few exposures.
OBJECTIVE
To report the results of a wrapping technique for porous orbital implants by using polyglactin 910 (Vicryl) mesh (Ethicon Inc., Somerville, NJ, U.S.A.).


METHODS
We retrospectively reviewed the records of 200 consecutive patients from one author's practice who received a polyglactin 910 mesh-wrapped porous orbital implant after enucleation or as a secondary implant between October 1, 1996, and April 15, 2001. We recorded potential problems that might be attributed to polyglactin 910 mesh both before pegging (excessive inflammatory response to the material, conjunctival thinning, and implant exposure) and after pegging (exposure of the implant around the sleeve, conjunctival thinning, and implant exposure other than adjacent to the peg).


RESULTS
One hundred twenty-two men and 78 women underwent placement of a polyglactin 910 mesh-wrapped porous orbital implant. The average age at the time of implantation was 48.9 years (range, 11 to 85 years). The average follow-up interval in the 200 patients was 19.4 months (range, 2 to 80 months). Thirteen of the 200 patients had less than 6 months of follow-up, leaving 187 patients with an average follow-up of 20.5 months (range, 6 to 80 months). There were 76 primary enucleations and 124 secondary orbital implants. Thirty-seven patients received a Bio-Eye hydroxyapatite implant (HA) (Integrated Orbital Implants, San Diego, Calif), 97 received a synthetic FCI hydroxyapatite implant (FCI, Issy-Les-Moulineaux, France), and 66 received a Bioceramic implant (aluminum oxide-Al2O3) (FCI, Issy-Les-Moulineaux, France). One hundred fourteen patients (57%) underwent peg placement. The average time to pegging was 9.9 months (range, 6 to 16 months). Before pegging, 4 of 187 patients (2.1%) had implant exposure. Three of these exposures followed secondary orbital implant placement (2 Bio-Eye HA, 1 synthetic FCI3 HA) and one followed an enucleation (synthetic FCI3 HA). Two patients required a temporalis fascia graft and one required a scleral patch; the remaining defect closed spontaneously. One patient had conjunctival thinning 6 months after orbital implantation, which remained stable with no frank exposure for 36 months. No patient had excess socket inflammation. After peg placement, 3 additional patients had exposure of the implant around the peg site. There were no cases of conjunctival thinning or exposure of the implant other than adjacent to the peg site.


CONCLUSIONS
Polyglactin 910 mesh is an excellent option as a wrapping material for porous orbital implants. It is simple to use, readily available, eliminates the need for donor tissue, does not require a second operative site, and it is less expensive than other currently available wrapping materials. We attribute our high success rate to our technique, which emphasizes proper placement of the implant within the Tenon space, suturing the extraocular muscles anterior to their normal anatomic sites, and meticulous closure of the Tenon capsule and conjunctiva in separate layers.
Jordan
David R
DR
University of Ottawa Eye Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Klapper
Stephen R
SR
Gilberg
Steven M
SM
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D002648:Child; D020099:Coated Materials, Biocompatible; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D013508:Ophthalmologic Surgical Procedures / Q000379:methods*; D020273:Orbital Implants; D011098:Polyglactin 910 / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D016062:Porosity; D011183:Postoperative Complications; D019919:Prosthesis Implantation / Q000379:methods; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D013526:Surgical Mesh; D016896:Treatment Outcome
D020099:Coated Materials, Biocompatible; D011098:Polyglactin 910