This study aimed to assess the complication rate of porous polyethylene (PP) implants in patients who underwent enucleation for uveal melanoma and to explore the link between complications and surgical factors.
Methods
A retrospective cohort study was conducted on consecutive cases treated at the Ocular Oncology Unit, University Clinical Hospital of Valladolid, from 1995 to 2023. Complications were classified as mild (managed conservatively) or severe (requiring implant removal or replacement). Kaplan-Meier curves analyzed complication timing.
Results
The study included 193 patients, with an average age of 63.6 years and a mean follow-up of 65.9 months. Results showed that 54 complications (28%) were recorded, with 13 (6.7%) classified as severe, and 55.6% of complications occurred within the first three years. Implant wrapping varied: 50.3% with sclera, 11.9% with bovine pericardium, and 33.2% not wrapped. The study found no significant difference in implant survival between wrapped and unwrapped implants or between different sizes (p > .05).
Conclusion
The findings suggest that PP implants have a low rate of severe complications in uveal melanoma patients and that complication risk is not significantly impacted by wrapping or implant size.
ShieldsJAShieldsCL. Management of posterior uveal melanoma: past, present, and future: the 2014 Charles L. Schepens lecture. Ophthalmology2015; 122: 414–428.
2.
VicenteNSaornilMAGarcía-ÁlvarezC, et al.Melanoma uveal: características clínicas, tratamiento y supervivencia en una serie de 500 pacientes. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol2013; 88: 433–438.
3.
SinghADTurellMETophamAK. Uveal melanoma: trends in incidence, treatment, and survival. Ophthalmology2011; 118: 1881–1885.
4.
NathanPCohenVCouplandS, et al.Uveal melanoma UK national guidelines. Eur J Cancer2015; 51: 2404–2412.
5.
JordanDRKlapperSRGilbergSM, et al.The bioceramic implant: evaluation of implant exposures in 419 implants. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg2010; 26: 80–82.
6.
ChalasaniRPoole-WarrenLConwayRM, et al.Porous orbital implants in enucleation: a systematic review. Surv Ophthalmol2007; 52: 145–155.
7.
SamiDYoungSPetersenR. Perspective on orbital enucleation implants. Surv Ophthalmol2007; 52: 244–265.
8.
SchelliniSEl DibRSilvaLRE, et al.Integrated versus non-integrated orbital implants for treating anophthalmic sockets (Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev2016; 63: 175–178.
9.
SuterAJMoltenoACBBevinTH, et al.Long term follow up of bone derived hydroxyapatite orbital implants. Br J Ophthalmol2002; 86: 1287–1292.
ShieldsCLShieldsJADe PotterP, et al.Problems with the hydroxyapatite orbital implant: experience with 250 consecutive cases. Br J Ophthalmol1994; 78: 702–706.
12.
RaoPKBarkerCCoitDG, et al.NCCN Guidelines insights: uveal melanoma, version 1.2019: featured updates to the NCCN guidelines. J Natl Compr Cancer Network2020; 18: 120–131.
13.
DamatoBECouplandSE. Differences in uveal melanomas between men and women from the British isles. Eye2012; 26: 292–299.
14.
StålhammarG. Sex-based differences in early and late uveal melanoma-related mortality. Cancer Med2023; 12: 6700–6710.
15.
ShieldsCLShieldsJADe PotterP, et al.Lack of complications of the hydroxyapatite orbital implant in 250 consecutive cases. Am Ophthalmol Soc1993; 91: 177–189.
16.
ChristmasNJGordonCDMurrayTG, et al.Intraorbital implants after enucleation and their complications: a 10- year review. Arch Ophthalmol1998; 116: 1199–1203.
17.
Van AckerEDe PotterP. Implant orbitaire en polyéthylène poreux (Medpor). Etude prospective sur 75 implantations primaires. J Fr Ophtalmol2001; 24: 1067–1073.
18.
AratYOShetlarDJBoniukM. Bovine pericardium versus homologous sclera as a wrapping for hydroxyapatite orbital implants. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg2003; 19: 189–193.
19.
TrichopoulosNAugsburgerJJ. Enucleation with unwrapped porous and nonporous orbital implants: a 15-year experience. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg2005; 21: 331–336.
20.
ShieldsCLUysalYMarrBP, et al.Experience with the polymer-coated hydroxyapatite implant after enucleation in 126 patients. Ophthalmology2007; 114: 367–373.
21.
ChaoDLHarbourJW. Hydroxyapatite versus polyethylene orbital implants for patients undergoing enucleation for uveal melanoma. Can J Ophthalmol2015; 50: 151–154.
22.
HoVWMHussainRNCzannerG, et al.Porous versus nonporous orbital implants after enucleation for uveal melanoma: a randomized study. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg2017; 33: 452–458.
23.
MularskaWWróblewska-ZierhofferMAdamskiW, et al.Surgical outcomes of unwrapped acrylic orbital implants: a review of 192 patients. J Fr Ophtalmol2023; 46: 1149–1154.
24.
TabatabaeeZMazloumiMRajabiMT, et al.Comparison of the exposure rate of wrapped hydroxyapatite (Bio-Eye) Versus unwrapped porous polyethylene (Medpor) orbital implants in enucleated patients. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg2011; 27: 114–118.
25.
BlaydonSMSheplerTRNeuhausRW, et al.The porous polyethylene (Medpor) spherical orbital implant: a retrospective study of 136 cases. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg2003; 19: 364–371.
26.
JordanDRKlapperSRGilbergSM. The use of vicryl mesh in 200 porous orbital implants, a technique with few exposures. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg2003; 19: 53–61.
27.
LeeVSubak-SharpeIHungerfordJL, et al.Exposure of primary orbital implants in postenucleation retinoblastoma patients. Ophthalmology2000; 107: 940–946.
28.
JordanDRChanSMawnL, et al.Complications associated with pegging hydroxyapatite orbital implants. Ophthalmology1999; 106: 505–512.
29.
JordanDR. Porous versus nonporous orbital implants: a 25-year retrospective. Ophthalmology2018; 125: 1317–1319.
JordanDR. The scleral cap technique for porous and nonporous orbital implants. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg2023; 39: 92–97.
32.
CusterPLKennedyRHWoogJJ, et al.Orbital implants in enucleation surgery: a report by the American academy of ophthalmology. Ophthalmology2003; 110: 2054–2061.
33.
LiTShenJDuffyMT. Exposure rates of wrapped and unwrapped orbital implants following enucleation. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg2001; 17: 431–435.
34.
ChenYHCuiHG. High density porous polyethylene material (medpor) as an unwrapped orbital implant. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B2006; 7: 679–682.
35.
BidarMHawesMJDresnerSC, et al.Conjunctival melting syndrome associated with the use of bovine pericardium wrapping material. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg2003; 19: 257–261.
36.
CharD. Early wound dehiscence with use of hydroxyapatite orbital implant covered with calf pericardium. Br J Ophthalmol2001; 85: 627–628.
