[
    {
        "id": "osp-12620",
        "type": "article-journal",
        "title": "Orbital implant exposure following enucleation or evisceration",
        "author": [
            {
                "family": "Al-Farsi",
                "given": "Huda Abdullah"
            },
            {
                "family": "Sabt",
                "given": "Buthaina Issa"
            },
            {
                "family": "Al-Mujaini",
                "given": "Abdullah Said"
            }
        ],
        "URL": "https://omanscience.com/ar/articles/orbital-implant-exposure-following-enucleation-or-evisceration",
        "language": "en",
        "issued": {
            "date-parts": [
                [
                    2017
                ]
            ]
        },
        "container-title": "Oman Journal of Ophthalmology",
        "volume": "10",
        "issue": "2",
        "page": "87-90",
        "DOI": "10.4103/ojo.ojo_156_2016",
        "publisher": "Medknow Publications",
        "ISSN": "0974-620X",
        "abstract": "Purpose: To study the exposure rate of orbital implant postenucleation or evisceration procedures in two tertiary hospitals in Oman.\n\nDesign: A retrospective, descriptive, cross-section study.\n\nMaterials and methods: Patients' records were reviewed for patients' demographics, surgical indications, implant types, follow-up and any reported complications after surgeries. Patients with a minimum of 1 year follow-up period were selected. All patients who underwent enucleation or evisceration with primary orbital implant were included in the study. Patients who underwent secondary orbital implant were excluded from the study.\n\nResults: A total of 37 patients (age between 4 and 88-year-old, median age is 54-year-old) underwent enucleation or evisceration during 2008-2014. The most common indications for the surgical intervention were painful blind eye (35%), followed by trauma (16%), and perforated corneal ulcer (16%). Out of 37 patients, hydroxyapatite implant was implanted in 17 patients (46%), a glass or acrylic implant was implanted in 17 patients (46%), bioceramic implant was implanted in two patients (5%), and Molteno prosthesis was implanted in one patient (3%). There was no case of orbital implant exposure in any patients in this study.\n\nConclusions: No orbital implant exposure was recorded in this study. The surgical technique, end to end rectus muscles suturing, used for enucleation/evisceration was the main reason for reduced implant exposure. In addition, the preexisting ocular pathology did not affect the outcome of the study."
    }
]