Primary Placement of a Motility Coupling Post in Porous Polyethylene Orbital Implants | Medical Devices and Equipment | JAMA Ophthalmology | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
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.
Ashworth  JLBrammar  RInkster  CLeatherbarrow  B A study of the hydroxyapatite orbital implant drilling procedure.  Eye. 1998;1237- 42Google ScholarCrossref
Remulla  HDRubin  PADShore  JW  et al.  Complications of porous spherical orbital implants.  Ophthalmology. 1995;102586- 593Google ScholarCrossref
Jordan  DRChan  SMawn  L  et al.  Complications associated with pegging hydroxyapatite orbital implants.  Ophthalmology. 1999;106505- 512Google ScholarCrossref
Karesh  JWDresner  SC High-density porous polyethylene (Medpor) as a successful anophthalmic socket implant.  Ophthalmology. 1994;1011688- 1696Google ScholarCrossref
Mawn  LAJordan  DRGilberg  S Scanning electron microscopic examination of porous orbital implants.  Can J Ophthalmol. 1998;33203- 209Google Scholar
Civelek  ACPacheco  EMNatarajan  TKWagner  HN  JrIliff  NT Quantitative measurement of vascularization and vascular ingrowth rate of coralline hydroxyapatite ocular implant by Tc-99m MDP bone imaging.  Clin Nucl Med. 1995;20779- 787Google ScholarCrossref
Rubin  PADPopham  JKBilyk  JRShore  JW Comparison of fibrovascular ingrowth into hydroxyapatite and porous polyethylene orbital implants.  Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 1994;1096- 103Google ScholarCrossref
Rubin  PADPopham  JRumelt  S  et al.  Enhancement of the cosmetic and functional outcome of enucleation with the conical orbital implant.  Ophthalmology. 1998;105919- 925Google ScholarCrossref
Choi  JCIwamoto  MABstandig  SRubin  PADShore  JW Medpor motility coupling post: a rabbit model.  Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;15190- 201Google ScholarCrossref
Branemark  PIHansson  BOAdell  R  et al.  Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw: experience from a 10-year period.  Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1977;11(suppl 16)7- 60Google Scholar
Hsu  WCGreen  JPSpilker  MHRubin  PAD Primary placement of a titanium motility post in a porous orbital implant: animal model with quantitative assessment of fibrovascular ingrowth and vascular density.  Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. In press.Google Scholar
Custer  PLTrinkaus  KMFornoff  J Comparative motility of hydroxyapatite and alloplastics enucleation implants.  Ophthalmology. 1999;106513- 516Google ScholarCrossref
Surgical Technique
June 2000

Primary Placement of a Motility Coupling Post in Porous Polyethylene Orbital Implants

Author Affiliations

From the Division of Ophthalmic Plastics, Orbital, and Cosmetic Eyelid Surgery, Department of Ophthalmology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118(6):826-832. doi:10.1001/archopht.118.6.826

The placement of a motility coupling post (MCP) to integrate the prosthesis with a porous orbital implant may enhance prosthetic motility following enucleation. Previously, MCP placement has required a second operation usually at least 6 months following enucleation. We developed a technique to place an MCP reliably and safely into a porous orbital implant at the time of enucleation. Eligibility criteria included high motivation to achieve maximal prosthetic motility, adequate conjunctiva to ensure desirable wound closure, and isolation of the 4 rectus muscles. Enucleation was performed in standard fashion with implantation of a conical porous polyethylene orbital implant. Implanted MCPs protruded anteriorly 2 to 4 mm. The Tenon capsule and conjunctiva were closed in separate layers over the protruding MCP. Thirty-two patients underwent primary placement. Follow-up ranged from 1 to 33 months (mean, 15 months). Nine MCPs spontaneously exposed within the first 4 months. One additional post autoexposed at 12 months. Three patients underwent a secondary procedure to expose the MCP. There were no cases of infection, explantation, or gross MCP malposition. Minor complications included pyogenic granuloma (n=2) and conjunctival overgrowth (n=1). All patients were successfully fit with prostheses. Prosthetic motility was acceptable in all patients. Motility coupling post placement at the time of enucleation surgery in selected patients is an effective, efficient surgical option.