Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
September 2001

Pegging Porous Polyethylene Implants

Author Affiliations

Copyright 2001 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use.2001

Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119(9):1394-1395. doi:

In reply

We are pleased to respond to Dr Jordan's concerns and challenges, for we feel that more informed dialogue will educate surgeons and ultimately improve all of our patients' care. To summarize, Dr Jordan's letter raises the following issues: (1) the shape of orbital implants; (2) the potential for loosening of the motility coupling post (MCP); and (3) the need for more quantitative data distinguishing porous polyethylene (PP) from hydroxyapatite (HA). In his letter, Dr Jordan also highlights some of his numerous contributions regarding problems and solutions with HA pegging systems. The findings and recommendations in our article addressed only the situation of an MCP placed in a conical (PP) implant.1 We carefully limited our conclusions to this shape and type of implant and coupling device. We feel that a close reading of our article will clarify most of these issues. However, we welcome this opportunity to provide additional information regarding the conical PP implant and MCP.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview