Orbital exenteration for conjunctival melanoma: comparison of long-term outcome between individualised and conventional techniques

Ma, Ruyun; Ren, Hui; Zhou, Xiaoting; Gan, Lu; Xu, Binbin; Guo, Jie; Qian, Jiang

doi:10.1038/s41433-021-01454-9

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…[ 7 ] Our previous study retrospectively reviewed the medical records of advanced CM cases treated with individualized exenteration and compared the long-term outcome between the individualized and conventional techniques. [ 8 ] The follow-up data suggested that the individualized approach offers improved aesthetic results while still maximizes the survival rate for advanced CM. According to our experience, we standardized and simplified the procedure of minimally invasive exenteration which enables eye socket reconstruction and ocular prosthesis fitting (Fig.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several factors should be taken into account to make individualized surgical decisions, for instance, the biology of the tumor, the anatomic location, the potential tissue planes to achieve adequate margins, and the patient's goal for cosmetics [7] . Our previous study retrospectively reviewed the medical records of advanced CM cases treated with individualized exenteration and compared the long-term outcome between the individualized and conventional techniques [8] . The follow-up data suggested that the individualized approach offers improved aesthetic results while still maximizes the survival rate for advanced CM.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Modified procedure of anterior orbital exenteration enables eye socket reconstruction

Gan

et al. 2022

Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The conventional procedure of anterior orbital exenteration is unfavorable for eye socket reconstruction, whereas a modified procedure enables socket reconstruction and prosthesis fitting. Our study aims to compare the cosmetic outcomes between these 2 surgical techniques. We retrospectively recruited patients treated with modified or conventional exenteration during January 2015 to May 2021 in our hospital. The conventional approach was performed along with dermis-fat graft transplantation. The modified approach was conducted followed by eye socket reconstruction and eyelid blepharoplasty. The clinical data were collected and analyzed, including demographics, tumor characteristics, postoperative complications, tumor-related events, and cosmetic outcomes. Forty-nine patients were consecutively recruited in this study, including 22 cases of modified exenteration and 27 cases of conventional exenteration. Forty-four subjects (89.8%) were diagnosed with ocular surface malignancies (conjunctival melanoma and squamous cell carcinoma) and 5 subjects (10.2%) were diagnosed with extraocular stage of uveal melanoma. After follow-up for 31.8 ± 17.1 months, the 1-, 2-, 5-year overall survival rate was calculated as 100%, 79.2%, and 59.2% in the Modified group, and 94.2%, 73.8%, and 51.5% in the Conventional group. Comparison of the survival curves showed no significant differences. In the Modified group, all patients received orbital implant placement and eye socket reconstruction. The implant motility was satisfactory in 12 cases (54.5%) with movements in 3 to 4 directions. The eyelid function was acceptable in 17 cases (77.3%) with no entropion, ectropion or lower lid laxity. Ocular prosthesis was delivered in 17 cases (77.3%) with successful fitting in 11 cases (64.7%). The self-rated cosmetic score was statistically ( t test, P < .0001) higher in the Modified group (6.7 ± 0.9) than the Conventional group (2.2 ± 0.4). The modified approach to anterior orbital exenteration enables eye socket reconstruction and cosmetic rehabilitation while still preserves the curable chance for the treatment of advanced periocular/intraocular malignancies.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%