Ocular motility

Hydroxyapatite vs. silicone ball implant, a direct comparison using identical surgical technique

J. P. Aey, W. R. Nunery, R. T. Martin, John Ng

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: Many patients elect not to undergo a secondary peg procedure when hydroxyapatite (HA) orbital implants are utilized. This study attempts to objectively quantitate and compare any difference in ocular motility of a prosthesis in patients with hydroxyapatite and silicone (Si) ball baseball implants when identical surgical techniques are utilized as described by Frueh, Nunery, and Dutton, and when no secondary Peg procedures are performed. Methods: All enucleation patients's charts were reviewed between 1992 and 1996 yielding a study population of 84 patients who met inclusion criteria. All patients were contacted by phone or by letter. Twelve came to the office for photographs (7 HA, 5 silicone) in primary, up, down, left, and right gazes while wearing Kestenbaum spectacles. Photographic slides were then projected onto a screen, and using the projected grid of the Kestenbaum spectacles and the midpupil position as a reference, the motility of the prosthesis vs. the contralateral eye was expressed as a ratio for all four positions of gaze. Results: Results are as follows. Supraduction: HA=0.35±0.12, Si=0.20±0.05, p=0.02; Infraduction:HA=0.50±0.17, Si=0.34±0.22,p=0.22; Right gaze: HA=0.28±0.16, Si=0.20±0.12, p=0.70; Left gaze: HA=0.25±0.17, Si=0.36±0.09, p=0.97. Only upgaze showed any significant statistical difference between HA and Si implants, which may be due to the age difference (HA=46.9, Si=59.6) between the two groups. Conclusion: The anecdotal reports of superior ocular motility of hydroxyapatite implants over silicone ball implants are not supported in this study. Given the low number of patients in this study, further recruitment of patients is necessary to fully elucidate the ocular motility relationship between hydroxyapatite and silicone ball implants when secondary peg procedures are not utilized.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalInvestigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science
Volume38
Issue number4
StatePublished - 1997
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Silicones
Durapatite
Prostheses and Implants
Orbital Implants
Baseball
Patient Selection

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Ocular motility : Hydroxyapatite vs. silicone ball implant, a direct comparison using identical surgical technique. / Aey, J. P.; Nunery, W. R.; Martin, R. T.; Ng, John.

In: Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Vol. 38, No. 4, 1997.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{98257d700bcb443788b375db2d2f9579,
title = "Ocular motility: Hydroxyapatite vs. silicone ball implant, a direct comparison using identical surgical technique",
abstract = "Purpose: Many patients elect not to undergo a secondary peg procedure when hydroxyapatite (HA) orbital implants are utilized. This study attempts to objectively quantitate and compare any difference in ocular motility of a prosthesis in patients with hydroxyapatite and silicone (Si) ball baseball implants when identical surgical techniques are utilized as described by Frueh, Nunery, and Dutton, and when no secondary Peg procedures are performed. Methods: All enucleation patients's charts were reviewed between 1992 and 1996 yielding a study population of 84 patients who met inclusion criteria. All patients were contacted by phone or by letter. Twelve came to the office for photographs (7 HA, 5 silicone) in primary, up, down, left, and right gazes while wearing Kestenbaum spectacles. Photographic slides were then projected onto a screen, and using the projected grid of the Kestenbaum spectacles and the midpupil position as a reference, the motility of the prosthesis vs. the contralateral eye was expressed as a ratio for all four positions of gaze. Results: Results are as follows. Supraduction: HA=0.35±0.12, Si=0.20±0.05, p=0.02; Infraduction:HA=0.50±0.17, Si=0.34±0.22,p=0.22; Right gaze: HA=0.28±0.16, Si=0.20±0.12, p=0.70; Left gaze: HA=0.25±0.17, Si=0.36±0.09, p=0.97. Only upgaze showed any significant statistical difference between HA and Si implants, which may be due to the age difference (HA=46.9, Si=59.6) between the two groups. Conclusion: The anecdotal reports of superior ocular motility of hydroxyapatite implants over silicone ball implants are not supported in this study. Given the low number of patients in this study, further recruitment of patients is necessary to fully elucidate the ocular motility relationship between hydroxyapatite and silicone ball implants when secondary peg procedures are not utilized.",
author = "Aey, {J. P.} and Nunery, {W. R.} and Martin, {R. T.} and John Ng",
year = "1997",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "38",
journal = "Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science",
issn = "0146-0404",
publisher = "Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ocular motility

T2 - Hydroxyapatite vs. silicone ball implant, a direct comparison using identical surgical technique

AU - Aey, J. P.

AU - Nunery, W. R.

AU - Martin, R. T.

AU - Ng, John

PY - 1997

Y1 - 1997

N2 - Purpose: Many patients elect not to undergo a secondary peg procedure when hydroxyapatite (HA) orbital implants are utilized. This study attempts to objectively quantitate and compare any difference in ocular motility of a prosthesis in patients with hydroxyapatite and silicone (Si) ball baseball implants when identical surgical techniques are utilized as described by Frueh, Nunery, and Dutton, and when no secondary Peg procedures are performed. Methods: All enucleation patients's charts were reviewed between 1992 and 1996 yielding a study population of 84 patients who met inclusion criteria. All patients were contacted by phone or by letter. Twelve came to the office for photographs (7 HA, 5 silicone) in primary, up, down, left, and right gazes while wearing Kestenbaum spectacles. Photographic slides were then projected onto a screen, and using the projected grid of the Kestenbaum spectacles and the midpupil position as a reference, the motility of the prosthesis vs. the contralateral eye was expressed as a ratio for all four positions of gaze. Results: Results are as follows. Supraduction: HA=0.35±0.12, Si=0.20±0.05, p=0.02; Infraduction:HA=0.50±0.17, Si=0.34±0.22,p=0.22; Right gaze: HA=0.28±0.16, Si=0.20±0.12, p=0.70; Left gaze: HA=0.25±0.17, Si=0.36±0.09, p=0.97. Only upgaze showed any significant statistical difference between HA and Si implants, which may be due to the age difference (HA=46.9, Si=59.6) between the two groups. Conclusion: The anecdotal reports of superior ocular motility of hydroxyapatite implants over silicone ball implants are not supported in this study. Given the low number of patients in this study, further recruitment of patients is necessary to fully elucidate the ocular motility relationship between hydroxyapatite and silicone ball implants when secondary peg procedures are not utilized.

AB - Purpose: Many patients elect not to undergo a secondary peg procedure when hydroxyapatite (HA) orbital implants are utilized. This study attempts to objectively quantitate and compare any difference in ocular motility of a prosthesis in patients with hydroxyapatite and silicone (Si) ball baseball implants when identical surgical techniques are utilized as described by Frueh, Nunery, and Dutton, and when no secondary Peg procedures are performed. Methods: All enucleation patients's charts were reviewed between 1992 and 1996 yielding a study population of 84 patients who met inclusion criteria. All patients were contacted by phone or by letter. Twelve came to the office for photographs (7 HA, 5 silicone) in primary, up, down, left, and right gazes while wearing Kestenbaum spectacles. Photographic slides were then projected onto a screen, and using the projected grid of the Kestenbaum spectacles and the midpupil position as a reference, the motility of the prosthesis vs. the contralateral eye was expressed as a ratio for all four positions of gaze. Results: Results are as follows. Supraduction: HA=0.35±0.12, Si=0.20±0.05, p=0.02; Infraduction:HA=0.50±0.17, Si=0.34±0.22,p=0.22; Right gaze: HA=0.28±0.16, Si=0.20±0.12, p=0.70; Left gaze: HA=0.25±0.17, Si=0.36±0.09, p=0.97. Only upgaze showed any significant statistical difference between HA and Si implants, which may be due to the age difference (HA=46.9, Si=59.6) between the two groups. Conclusion: The anecdotal reports of superior ocular motility of hydroxyapatite implants over silicone ball implants are not supported in this study. Given the low number of patients in this study, further recruitment of patients is necessary to fully elucidate the ocular motility relationship between hydroxyapatite and silicone ball implants when secondary peg procedures are not utilized.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33749085374&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33749085374&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 38

JO - Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

JF - Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

SN - 0146-0404

IS - 4

ER -