Comparison of Local Made and Imported Porous Polyethylene Orbital Implant for Enucleation in Thailand

Comparison of Exposure Rate Between Local Made and Imported Porous Polyethylene Orbital Implant for Enucleation in Thailand: A Randomized, Equivalence Controlled Trial and Multicenter Study

Status

Completed

Phases

Study type

Interventional

Source

ClinicalTrials.gov

Registry ID

NCT01312545

Enrollment

105

Registered

2011-03-10

Start date

2011-03-31

Completion date

2020-12-12

Last updated

2020-12-14

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Phthisis Bulbi

Keywords

orbital implant, evisceration, economic, polyethylene, porous

Brief summary

This study wants to compare between two types of implants in enucleation. Both of them are made from porous polyethylene but have different fabricating techniques. The investigators chose an exposure rate as a main outcome because the investigators think it is the most important outcome for the surgeons. The study hypothesis is: Is the exposure rate of a local-made polyethylene orbital implant the same as an imported one?

Detailed description

Sample size assessment * The sample size was calculated by using an equivalence formula. From a literature and our own experiences, the success rate for Medpor and 3DP were 92% and 94% respectively, the difference (D) of the success rate between two groups was 10% and assuming a 15% of drop out rate. * Then allocation sequence was generated by a computerized program, using block of six with varying block size. Data management * All definition of data, recruiting techniques, data collection techniques and data management flow were mentioned in the SOP. * After double entry technique, each case record form from each site will be sent via DataFax system to the data center at Center of Excellence for Biomedical and Public Health Informatics (BIOPHICS), Thailand. * Then data will be validated, analyzed and reported by staff at BIOPHICS. Plan for missing data * by adding a drop out rate to the sample size calculation. * by choosing the right patients. Actually, Thai patients have good co-operation especially in surgical research. Statistical analysis \- Intention to treat and per protocol model would be used to see the difference between two types of implants in this project.

Interventions

DEVICE3DP

intervention involving local made implant with different fabricating technique-3-dimensional printing (3DP) technique.

DEVICEMedpor

commercial porous polyethylene

Study design

Allocation

RANDOMIZED

Intervention model

PARALLEL

Primary purpose

TREATMENT

Masking

TRIPLE (Subject, Caregiver, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

ALL

Age

18 Years to No maximum

Healthy volunteers

Inclusion criteria

* Clinical diagnosis of phthisis bulbi, painful blindness, intraocular tumor without metastasis and severe ruptured eyeball * Must speak and understand Thai language well * Must have good consciousness

Exclusion criteria

* Has a history of prior enucleation or evisceration * Cannot follow up for at least one year * Has recent eye infection within 6 months

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame	Description
Exposure rate	From date of surgery until the date of first exposure, assessed up to 12 months	Exposure was defined as the separation of tissue over the anterior surface of an implant.

Secondary

Measure	Time frame	Description
Infection rate	From date of surgery until the date of first infection, assessed up to 12 months	Infection was defined as the presence of pus or abscess at or around an implant. It can be diagnosed clinically or confirmed by the histopathology report after explantation.

Countries

Thailand

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026