Skip to content

Comparative Motility of Alloplastic Orbital Implants

Comparative Motility of Retro-scleral and Intrascleral Orbital Implants After Evisceration

Status
UNKNOWN
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT04464109
Enrollment
30
Registered
2020-07-09
Start date
2020-07-01
Completion date
2021-06-30
Last updated
2020-08-04

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

Conditions

Anophthalmos; Acquired, Evisceration; Traumatic, Eye

Keywords

Evisceration, Orbital implant, Implant position, Implant motility

Brief summary

This study will evaluate the effect of posterior placement of orbital implants on their motility compared to intrascleral placement after evisceration .

Detailed description

Evisceration allows removal of the intraocular contents while preserving the sclera and normal extraocular muscle attachments. It is more advantageous than enucleation in patients in whom intraocular tumor is rules out. Maximizing orbital volume and restoration of movement are important aspects of a successful surgical outcome. Standard evisceration techniques do not allow placement of an implant larger than 13-16 mm which don't adequately replace the volume leading to postevisceration socket syndrome. Therefore, various techniques have been described to expand the scleral cavity and allow placement of a large implant including anterior sclerotomies, posterior sclerotomies, and disinsertion of optic nerve. Implant exposure is a terrible complication of evisceration with reported rates as high as 67%. Exposure of the implant can lead to infection, which usually mandates removal of the implant. Trying to minimize this risk, physicians intentionally place the implants posterior to the normal position of the globe. Some authors described placement of the implant posterior to posterior sclera which totally eliminated the risk of exposure. However, this deep seating of the implant may have deleterious effects on its motility. It can decrease implant-prosthesis interaction. In addition, retro-scleral placement of the implant moves it posterior to the pulleys that serve as the functional origins of rectus muscles. This relationship would be expected to alter the pulling directions of the rectus muscles after evisceration hindering effective implant motility. In this trial the investigators will try to study the effect of posterior placement of the implants on its motility after evisceration.

Interventions

PROCEDUREEvisceration with orbital implantation

Evisceration will be performed. Alloplastic orbital implant will be inserted either posterior to the sclera or partly within the scleral canal.

Sponsors

Fayoum University Hospital
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 50 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Patients who are candidates for evisceration

Exclusion criteria

* Inability to provide independent, informed consent * Significant preoperative motility abnormalities

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Implant motility6 monthsThe conjunctiva is marked at the center point of the implant while the patient looking in primary gaze. The excursion of the mark will be measured will a standard millimeter ruler in extreme gaze positions
Prosthesis motility6 monthsIt will be measured with the kestenbaum's limbus test. Photographs will be taken while patients wearing Kestenbaum spectacles in vertical and horizontal directions of gaze.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Volume augmentation6 monthsExophthalmometry will be performed for all patients after fitting a prosthesis. Enophthalmos is to be graded from 1 to 4 (grade 1 = no postoperative improvement; grade 2 = improvement \<2 mm but remained enophthalmos; grade 3 = improvement ≥2 mm but remained enophthalmos; and grade 4 = no enophthalmos) compared with unaffected side.

Countries

Egypt

Contacts

Primary ContactMostafa Mohammed M Diab, PhD
mmd11@fayoum.edu.eg01016737314
Backup ContactRichard C Allen, PhD
Richardcutlerallen@gmail.com

Outcome results

None listed

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