Medicina (Kaunas) 2006; 42 (9): 717-724

Contents Visas straipsnis lietuvių kalba  

Evaluation of the cosmetic effect of orbital endoimplantation after removal the eyeball

Raimonda Piškinienė

Clinic of Eye Diseases, Kaunas University of Medicine Hospital, Lithuania

Key words: postenucleation socket syndrome, orbital implant, endoprosthesis.

Summary. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the cosmetic effect of endoimplantation after removal the eyeball. The removal of the globe creates anatomic and physiological alteration of the orbital tissue and orbital bones. A volume deficit occurs when an eye is enucleated. Deep upper lid sulcus, ptosis, lower lid laxity, and enophthalmus of the artificial eye together constitute the postenucleation socket syndrome, which creates an asymmetry of the face. The orbital prosthesis by placing it in the orbital cavity allows correcting volume deficit, so the implant with attached extraocular muscles, together with an artificial eye, creates an illusion of real eye. Forty patients were operated on in Clinic of Eye Diseases of Kaunas University of Medicine Hospital. Twenty patients underwent removal of the eye and procedure of orbital implant insertion (main group). Twenty patients had just an eyeball removal without insertion of an orbital implant (control group). There was a statistically significant difference in exophthalmometry data between main and control groups (14.20±2.73 vs. 10.35±1.23 mm, respectively; p<0.05). The motility of artificial eye laterally (4.30±1.66 mm), medially (3.65±1.23 mm), up (3.70±1.13 mm), and down (3.40±1.19 mm) in the main group was significantly better as compared to the control group (p<0.05), where motility of the artificial eye was 0.60±0.68 mm laterally, 0.70±0.92 mm medially, 0.30±0.66 mm up, and 0.30±0.47 mm down. Therefore, a much better symmetry, better movement of the artificial eye, and less severe form of postenucleation syndrome were observed in patients who underwent orbital endoimplantation after eyeball removal.

Correspondence to R. Piškinienė, Clinic of Eye Diseases, Kaunas University of Medicine Hospital, Eivenių 2, 50009 Kaunas, Lithuania. E-mail:

Received 20 July 2005, accepted 16 August 2006