[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.167.156.247. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
December 1987

A Preliminary Report on the Universal Implant

Author Affiliations

From the Oculoplastic Surgery Service, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City (Drs Jordan and Anderson); Department of Ophthalmology, University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics, Iowa City (Dr Nerad); and Iowa Eye Prosthetics Laboratory, Coralville (Mr Allen). Dr Jordan is now with the Oculoplastic, Orbital, and Oncology Services, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Ottawa.

Arch Ophthalmol. 1987;105(12):1726-1731. doi:10.1001/archopht.1987.01060120124039
Abstract

• Extrusion and time-consuming surgical techniques required of implantation have been the major criticisms of quasiintegrated implants such as the Iowa Implant. With these concerns in mind, the Universal Implant (Oculo-Plastik, Montreal) has been designed to offer the motility advantages seen with quasi-integrated implants and the ease of placement of a sphere. The Universal Implant incorporates most of the advantages seen in the Iowa Implant and other quasi-integrated implants. In addition, the Universal Implant (1) utilizes a faster surgical technique for implantation; (2) avoids cleaning the muscles; (3) has lower, more rounded, smaller mounds that should decrease the late extrusion rate; (4) can be used as an enucleation implant, evisceration implant, or secondary implant; and (5) has a greater girth and larger radius of the posterior surface that helps support orbital fat and tissues, resulting in a more natural superior sulcus. Considering that the Iowa Implant is presently not available, the Universal Implant should be used by those surgeons who were pleased with the former implant and should be considered as a reasonable alternative to other enucleation implants.

×