title: Experience with the polymer-coated hydroxyapatite implant after enucleation in 126 patients.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate the new polymer-coated hydroxyapatite implant.
  
  
  METHODS
  Retrospective nonrandomized single-center case series.
  
  
  METHODS
  One hundred twenty-six patients managed with enucleation and placement of the polymer-coated hydroxyapatite implant at the Ocular Oncology Service at Wills Eye Hospital of Thomas Jefferson University.
  
  
  METHODS
  A retrospective analysis was performed on 126 patients managed with enucleation and placement of the polymer-coated hydroxyapatite implant.
  
  
  METHODS
  Ease of placement, functional ocular motility, tissue complications, and patient satisfaction.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The preenucleation diagnoses included uveal melanoma (n = 76; 61%), retinoblastoma (n = 34; 27%), blind painful eye (n = 8; 6%), neovascular glaucoma from intraocular tumors or retinal detachment (n = 5; 4%), and others (n = 3; 2%). Previous ocular therapies for posterior segment conditions such as plaque radiotherapy, retinal detachment repair, and chemoreduction, thermotherapy, and cryotherapy had been performed in 22% of patients (n = 27). The implant size was 20 mm (n = 103; 82%), 18 mm (n = 22; 17%), and 16 mm (n = 1; 1%). Implant preparation and placement was uncomplicated in all patients, without adhesion to surrounding tissue. Four rectus muscles were attached to the implant in all patients. Socket motility was judged to be good (n = 118; 94%), fair (n = 6; 5%), and poor (n = 2; 2%). Complications included conjunctival thinning (n = 1; <1%), pyogenic granuloma (n = 1; <1%), conjunctival cyst (n = 3; 2%), implant infection (n = 1; <1%), and implant exposure (n = 3; 2%). There were no cases of implant extrusion or allergic reaction to the polymer. Patient satisfaction was reported as good (n = 123; 98%), fair (n = 2; 2%), and poor (n = 1; <1%).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The polymer-coated hydroxyapatite implant is smoothly placed into the orbit after enucleation without the need for additional tissue wrap. With proper placement, this implant provides satisfactory functional motility and shows favorable tissue tolerance with no clinical evidence of allergic reaction or extrusion.
authors.affiliation: Ocular Oncology Service, Wills Eye Hospital, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107, USA.
authors.forename: Carol L
authors.initials: CL
authors.lastname: Shields
authors.forename: Yusuf
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Uysal
authors.forename: Brian P
authors.initials: BP
authors.lastname: Marr
authors.forename: Sara E
authors.initials: SE
authors.lastname: Lally
authors.forename: Eduardo
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Rodriques
authors.forename: Bhairavi
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Kharod
authors.forename: Jerry A
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: Shields
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D002648:Child; D002675:Child, Preschool; D020099:Coated Materials, Biocompatible; D017886:Durapatite; D015353:Eye Enucleation; D005133:Eye Movements; D005137:Eye, Artificial; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007223:Infant; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D020273:Orbital Implants; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D011108:Polymers; D012189:Retrospective Studies
chemical_list: D020099:Coated Materials, Biocompatible; D011108:Polymers; D017886:Durapatite