THE SYNTHETIC HYDROXYAPATITE IMPLANT - A REPORT ON 65 PATIENTS

Citation
Dr. Jordan et al., THE SYNTHETIC HYDROXYAPATITE IMPLANT - A REPORT ON 65 PATIENTS, Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery, 14(4), 1998, pp. 250-255
Citations number
10
Categorie Soggetti
Ophthalmology
ISSN journal
07409303
Volume
14
Issue
4
Year of publication
1998
Pages
250 - 255
Database
ISI
SICI code
0740-9303(1998)14:4<250:TSHI-A>2.0.ZU;2-1
Abstract
Sixty-five patients receiving the FCI synthetic hydroxyapatite implant (FCI3, FCI, Issy-Les-Moulineaux, France) after enucleation, eviscerat ion, or as a secondary implant were studied under human trial guidelin es established by Health and Welfare Canada. The implant ischemically identical to the original coralline Bio Eye (Integrated Orbital Implan ts Inc., San Diego, CA, U.S.A.), is easy to work with, and was implant ed without difficulty using a wrap of polygalactin 910 (Vicryl mesh, E thicon, Inc.) in the majority of patients, Postoperative drilling was carried out at approximately 6 months and Found to be much easier than drilling of the Bio Eye. The implant could be hand drilled using dril l bits rolled between the thumb and index finger. Postoperatively, pat ients were followed-up from 7 to 24 months and did not have any proble ms different from those associated with the original hydroxyapatite im plant derived from sea coral (Bio Eye). One case of conjunctival dehis cence occurred at 4 weeks and required a temporalis fascia patch graft to repair. One implant became infected after drilling and had to be r emoved. The motility obtained with the third-generation FCI implant (F CI3) was similar to that seen with the Bio Eye, in comparable patients . That is, those receiving implants after an evisceration, on the whol e, had better motility than those receiving an implant after primary e nucleation or secondary implantation. The FCI3 hydroxyapatite implant is a viable alternative to the original Bio Eye hydroxyapatite implant . It's advantages are: 1) reduced cost, and 2) ease of drilling (a mot orized drill is not required). The implant was given Health and Welfar e approval in Canada on February 26, 1997.