Home > Archive>Volume 17, Issue 10, 2024 >1857-1863. DOI:10.18240/ijo.2024.10.12
PDF HTML XML Export Cite reminder
Comparison between local-made and imported porous polyethylene orbital implant: a randomized controlled equivalence trial and multicenter study
Author:
Corresponding Author:

Sunisa Sintuwong. Department of Ophthalmology, Mettapracharak (Wat Rai Khing) Hospital, Nakhon Pathom 73210, Thailand. drsunisa@gmail.com

Fund Project:

Supported by the Mettapracharak grant; Thai Government Budget grant; Health Systems Research Institute grant; National Science and Technology Development Agency grant.

  • Article
    • | |
  • Metrics
    • |
  • Reference [19]
    • |
  • Related [2]
    • | | |
  • Comments
    Abstract:

    AIM: To compare the exposure rate, infection rate, percentage of enhancement, and success rate between Medpor and the three-dimensional printed polyethylene (3DP-PE) orbital implant in a preliminary report. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, equivalence, controlled trial was conducted at two institutes. The equivalent margin was ±10%. The sample size for the equivalence trial was 174 participants per group. Patients who were eligible for enucleations received either Medpor or 3DP-PE implants based on a randomized block of six. The surgeries were performed by five oculoplastic surgeons. The assessor and patients were masked. The magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the orbit was performed at least 6mo after operation and the fibrovascular ingrowth was analyzed using the Image J software. Follow-up continued at least 1y after surgery. The intention to treat and per protocol approaches were used. RESULTS: Totally 128 patients met the criteria in the report. Fifty Medpor and 55 3DP-PE cases completed the trial. The most common cause of blindness was trauma. The mean follow-up times of Medpor and 3DP-PE were 33 and 40mo respectively. The exposure rate was not statistically significant between two groups (6.0% and 7.3%), P<0.05, 95%CI (-9.8%, +12.0%). The success rates were 94% (Medpor) and 92.7% (3DP-PE). No postoperative infection was reported. Nine patients had MRI tests and two had implant exposures with 66.3% enhancement at 75mo (Medpor) and 58% enhancement at 57mo (3DP-PE) postoperatively. CONCLUSION: There is no statistically significant difference in exposure rate and success rate between Medpor and 3DP-PE in enucleation in the report. However, we cannot conclude that they are equivalent in terms of the exposure rate and success rate because the 95%CI is wider than ±10%. The infection rate is equivalent in both groups.

    Reference
    1 Yang MK, Lee MJ, Kim N, Choung H, Khwarg SI. Outcomes of enucleation and porous polyethylene orbital implant insertion in patients with paediatric retinoblastoma: a long-term follow-up study. Br J Ophthalmol 2022;106(4):502-509.
    2 Su GW, Yen MT. Current trends in managing the anophthalmic socket after primary enucleation and evisceration. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 2004;20(4):274-280.
    3 Suwanprateeb J, Suvannapruk W, Wasoontararat K, Leelapatranurak K, Wanumkarng N, Sintuwong S. Preparation and comparative study of a new porous polyethylene ocular implant using powder printing technology. J Bioact Compatible Polym 2011;26(3):317-331.
    4 Sosakul T, Tuchpramuk P, Suvannapruk W, Srion A, Rungroungdouyboon B, Suwanprateeb J. Evaluation of tissue ingrowth and reaction of a porous polyethylene block as an onlay bone graft in rabbit posterior mandible. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2020;50(2):106-120.
    5 Sintuwong S, Leelapatranurak K, Lumyongsatien M, et al. Long-term outcomes and measuring vascularisation of three-dimensional printed porous polyethylene orbital implant in enucleation and evisceration. The Thai Journal of Ophthalmology 2022;36(1):15-26.
    6 Suwanprateeb J, Thammarakcharoen F, Wongsuvan V, Chokevivat W. Development of porous powder printed high density polyethylene for personalized bone implants. J Porous Mater 2012;19(5):623-632.
    7 Shome D, Honavar SG, Raizada K, Raizada D. Implant and prosthesis movement after enucleation: a randomized controlled trial. Ophthalmology 2010;117(8):1638-1644.
    8 Taneja S, Aldoais T, Kaliki S. Primary orbital polymethylmethacrylate implant following primary enucleation for retinoblastoma: a study of 321 cases. Orbit 2021;40(2):127-132.
    9 Vahdani K, Rose GE, Marjanovic B, Verity DH. One-stage intraconal volume modification for exposed and nonexposed ball implants. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 2024;40(4):426-433.
    10 Ababneh OH, AboTaleb EA, Abu Ameerh MA, Yousef YA. Enucleation and evisceration at a tertiary care hospital in a developing country. BMC Ophthalmol 2015;15:120.
    11 Ma YJ, Zhu XY, Chen B, Lin YY, Liu J, Chen X. Auricular cartilage versus donor sclera as a wrapping of hydroxyapatite orbital implants. Int J Ophthalmol 2021;14(3):436-441.
    12 Custer PL, Trinkaus KM. Porous implant exposure: Incidence, management, and morbidity. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 2007;23(1):1-7.
    13 Svedberg K. Outcome of eviscerations and enucleations at a Swedish tertiary referral centre between 2008 and 2019:improved surgical management leading to reduced complication rate. Orbit 2023;42(2):174-180.
    14 Mehic D, Gebhart J, Pabinger I. Bleeding disorder of unknown cause: a diagnosis of exclusion. Hamostaseologie 2024;44(4):287-297.
    15 Vollkommer T, Henningsen A, Friedrich RE, Felthaus OH, Eder F, Morsczeck C, Smeets R, Gehmert S, Gosau M. Extent of inflammation and foreign body reaction to porous polyethylene in vitro and in vivo. In Vivo 2019;33(2):337-347.
    16 Toribio A, Martínez-Blanco H, Rodríguez-Aparicio L, Ferrero MÁ, Marrodán T, Fernández-Natal I. In vitro adherence of conjunctival bacteria to different oculoplastic materials. Int J Ophthalmol 2018;11(12):1895-1901.
    17 Custer PL, Maamari RN, Huecker JB, Gordon MO. Anophthalmic ptosis and the effects of enucleation on upper eyelid function. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 2021;37(3S):S80-S84.
    18 Wang N, Liu R, Li J, Wang JJ, Xu LY, Guo QH, Zhang X, Ma JM. Long-term efficacy of enucleation combined with primary orbital implantation in children with retinoblastoma histopathological invasion of optic nerve. Front Neurol 2022;13:1013523.
    19 Klapper SR, Jordan DR, Ells A, Grahovac S. Hydroxyapatite orbital implant vascularization assessed by magnetic resonance imaging. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 2003;19(1):46-52.
    Cited by
    Comments
    Comments
    分享到微博
    Submit
Get Citation

Sunisa Sintuwong, Kanjana Leelapatranurak, Orapan Aryasit,/et al.Comparison between local-made and imported porous polyethylene orbital implant: a randomized controlled equivalence trial and multicenter study. Int J Ophthalmol, 2024,17(10):1857-1863

Copy
Share
Article Metrics
  • Abstract:67
  • PDF: 203
  • HTML: 0
  • Cited by: 0
Publication History
  • Received:January 18,2024
  • Revised:April 17,2024
  • Online: September 18,2024
You are the 4404967 Visitors
Governing Body：Department of Health, Provincial Government of Shaanxi, China
Organizer：Xi'an Medical Association of China
Address：Room 11707-08, Building 2, Unit 1, Wanda Plaza, No.8 Yanta North Road, Xi'an 710054, Shaanxi Province, China
Fax：(8629)82245172 Phone：(+8629)82245172/82210956
Email：ijopress@163.com
International Journal of Ophthalmology ® 2025 All Rights Reserved   The terms of CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 are applicable to all open access content.