[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
July 1989

Primary vs Delayed Implant in Evisceration

Author Affiliations

Salt Lake City, Utah

Arch Ophthalmol. 1989;107(7):952. doi:10.1001/archopht.1989.01070020014003
Abstract

To the Editor.  —We read with interest the recent article by Shore et al1 concerning delayed primary wound closure. Although their idea of eviscerating a blind eye with endophthalmitis and delayed secondary implant after several days of local wound care is supported by current knowledge of wound dehiscence and bacterial counts, we find that an important argument has been neglected.In the preantibiotic era, Burch2 pointed out that infection is a frequent cause of implant extrusion after evisceration. It is intuitive that the risk of implant infection and subsequent extrusion will be higher in an evisceration performed for endophthalmitis. Nonetheless, one must weigh the risks and benefits of placing an orbital implant at the time of the evisceration vs local wound care followed by a secondary implant some days later. In the case of local wound care followed by a secondary implant, the patient must endure several days

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