Integrated versus non-integrated orbital implants for treating anophthalmic sockets

Abstract

Integrated versus non-integrated orbital implants for treating anophthalmic sockets.

Porous versus Nonporous Orbital Implants: A 25-Year Retrospective

“…I agree with Wladis et al 18 and Schelleni et al 30 that additional research with well-designed clinical trials would be of benefit to further assess implant types and enable additional critical assessment. 18,30 Future studies should use rigorous methodology to explore the role that implant type has on outcomes of clinical relevance. 18…”

“…Furthermore, the quality of the included studies was low. 30 In a recent review by Wladis et al 18 of this subject matter, only 2 of 25 articles met a level I rating (i.e., welldesigned, well-conducted randomized clinical trial). I agree with Wladis et al 18 and Schelleni et al 30 that additional research with well-designed clinical trials would be of benefit to further assess implant types and enable additional critical assessment.…”

“…30 In a recent review by Wladis et al 18 of this subject matter, only 2 of 25 articles met a level I rating (i.e., welldesigned, well-conducted randomized clinical trial). I agree with Wladis et al 18 and Schelleni et al 30 that additional research with well-designed clinical trials would be of benefit to further assess implant types and enable additional critical assessment. 18,30 Future studies should use rigorous methodology to explore the role that implant type has on outcomes of clinical relevance.…”

“…Thus, there is little evidence that porous implants have a reduced extrusion or exposure rate, and in fact, it may be higher. 15,16,30 Porous implant exposures can occur anytime, and the longer the follow-up, the greater the number of exposures. 11,14,16 With respect to infection, nonporous implants (e.g., PMMA/silicone) have been shown to have a low infection rate (0%e1%).…”

“…15e18 The usefulness of many of these is limited because there are several factors contributing to the difficulty in comparing various studies, including small numbers of subjects, limited follow-up, lack of use of multivariate methods of analysis, the existence of many confounding variables (e.g., different surgical techniques, varying surgical experience, several different types of implants), and a lack of quality of life assessments. 15 In Schellini et al's 30 Cochrane review of integrated versus nonintegrated implants, only 3 of 338 studies met the inclusion criterion for randomized or quasi-randomized clinical trials. Furthermore, the quality of the included studies was low.…”