Outcomes of planned versus emergent enucleation procedures with primary orbital implants

Published:November 08, 2022DOI:



      The primary purpose of this study was to explore the outcomes of primary implant placement in patients who have undergone enucleation on either a planned or emergent basis.


      A retrospective chart review was performed of 128 enucleations with at least a 1-year postoperative follow-up between November 2008 and May 2019 by a single oculoplastic surgeon at Albany Medical Center. Emergent cases were categorized as those with an active, unclosed globe perforation, secondary to either acute trauma, dehiscence or failed closure of a previously opposed wound, or exposure of a surgical site with dehiscence of the underlying sclera. Patient demographics, clinical features, and postoperative findings were recorded. The incidence of implant exposure was used as an indication of patient outcomes, and the data were subsequently analyzed using t tests.


      Of the 128 enucleations performed, 32 (25%) were carried out on an emergent basis, of which 2 patients (6.25%) developed implant exposure. In contrast, of the 96 enucleations that were carried out in a planned, nonemergent manner, 3 patients (3.1%) developed implant exposure. There was no significant relationship between implant exposure rates in the acute and planned enucleation groups (p = 0.4047).


      Despite the implications of globe perforation, our analysis suggests no significant correlation of implant exposures in acute versus planned enucleations with primary orbital implants. As such, physicians may confidently place a primary implant at the time of enucleation in both groups, and they may use these data to counsel their patients about the risks of postoperative complications.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Kord Valeshabad A
        • Naseripour M
        • Asghari R
        • et al.
        Enucleation and evisceration: indications, complications and clinicopathological correlations.
        Int J Ophthalmol. 2014; 7: 677-680
        • Savar A
        • Andreoli MT
        • Kloek CE
        • Andreoli CM.
        Enucleation for open globe injury.
        Am J Ophthalmol. 2009; 147 (e1): 595-600
        • Nakra T
        • Simon GJ
        • Douglas RS
        • Schwarcz RM
        • McCann JD
        • Goldberg RA.
        Comparing outcomes of enucleation and evisceration.
        Ophthalmology. 2006; 113: 2270-2275
        • Yousuf SJ
        • Jones LS
        • Kidwell Jr., ED
        Enucleation and evisceration: 20 years of experience.
        Orbit. 2012; 31: 211-215
        • Yoon JS
        • Lew H
        • Kim SJ
        • Lee SY.
        Exposure rate of hydroxyapatite orbital implants a 15-year experience of 802 cases.
        Ophthalmology. 2008; 115 (e2): 566-572
        • Mahoney NR
        • Grant MP
        • Iliff NT
        • Merbs SL.
        Exposure rate of smooth surface tunnel porous polyethylene implants after enucleation.
        Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014; 30: 492-498
        • Trichopoulos N
        • Augsburger JJ.
        Enucleation with unwrapped porous and nonporous orbital implants: a 15-year experience.
        Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005; 21: 331-336
        • Su GW
        • Yen MT.
        Current trends in managing the anophthalmic socket after primary enucleation and evisceration.
        Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004; 20: 274-280
        • Remulla HD
        • Rubin PA
        • Shore JW
        • et al.
        Complications of porous spherical orbital implants.
        Ophthalmology. 1995; 102: 586-593
        • Shoamanesh A
        • Pang NK
        • Oestreicher JH.
        Complications of orbital implants: a review of 542 patients who have undergone orbital implantation and 275 subsequent PEG placements.
        Orbit. 2007; 26: 173-182
        • Blaydon SM
        • Shepler TR
        • Neuhaus RW
        • White WL
        • Shore JW.
        The porous polyethylene (Medpor) spherical orbital implant: a retrospective study of 136 cases.
        Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003; 19: 364-371
        • Jordan DR
        • Bawazeer A.
        Experience with 120 synthetic hydroxyapatite implants (FCI3).
        Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001; 17: 184-190
        • Nunery WR
        • Heinz GW
        • Bonnin JM
        • Martin RT
        • Cepela MA.
        Exposure rate of hydroxyapatite spheres in the anophthalmic socket: histopathologic correlation and comparison with silicone sphere implants.
        Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 1993; 9: 96-104
        • Oestreicher JH
        • Liu E
        • Berkowitz M.
        Complications of hydroxyapatite orbital implants: a review of 100 consecutive cases and a comparison of Dexon mesh (polyglycolic acid) with scleral wrapping.
        Ophthalmology. 1997; 104: 324-329
        • Custer PL
        • Trinkaus KM.
        Porous implant exposure: incidence, management, and morbidity.
        Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007; 23: 1-7
        • Karesh JW
        • Dresner SC.
        High-density porous polyethylene (Medpor) as a successful anophthalmic socket implant.
        Ophthalmology. 1994; 101 (discussion 1695–6): 1688-1695
        • Ma X
        • Schou KR
        • Maloney-Schou M
        • Harwin FM
        • Ng JD.
        The porous polyethylene/bioglass spherical orbital implant: a retrospective study of 170 cases.
        Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011; 27: 21-27
        • Alwitry A
        • West S
        • King J
        • Foss AJ
        • Abercrombie LC.
        Long-term follow-up of porous polyethylene spherical implants after enucleation and evisceration.
        Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007; 23: 11-15
        • Jordan DR
        • Gilberg S
        • Bawazeer A.
        Coralline hydroxyapatite orbital implant (Bio-Eye): experience with 158 patients.
        Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004; 20: 69-74
        • Viswanathan P
        • Sagoo MS
        • Olver JM.
        UK national survey of enucleation, evisceration and orbital implant trends.
        Br J Ophthalmol. 2007; 91: 616-619
        • Lang P
        • Kim JW
        • McGovern K
        • et al.
        Porous orbital implant after enucleation in retinoblastoma patients: indications and complications.
        Orbit. 2018; 37: 438-443
        • Gauthier AC
        • Oduyale OK
        • Fliotsos MJ
        • et al.
        Clinical characteristics and outcomes in patients undergoing primary or secondary enucleation or evisceration after ocular trauma.
        Clin Ophthalmol. 2020; 14: 3499-3506
        • Chiu SJ
        • Tan JHY
        • Currie ZI.
        To implant or not to implant: emergency orbital eviscerations with primary orbital implants.
        Eye (Lond). 2021; 35: 3077-3086
        • Suter AJ
        • Molteno AC
        • Bevin TH
        • Fulton JD
        • Herbison P.
        Long-term follow-up of bone derived hydroxyapatite orbital implants.
        Br J Ophthalmol. 2002; 86: 1287-1292
        • Goldberg RA
        • Holds JB
        • Ebrahimpour J.
        Exposed hydroxyapatite orbital implants: report of six cases.
        Ophthalmology. 1992; 99: 831-836
        • Lin CW
        • Liao SL.
        Long-term complications of different porous orbital implants: a 21-year review.
        Br J Ophthalmol. 2017; 101: 681-685