Abstract
The ‘baseball’ orbital implant was described by Frueh and Felker in 1976. Although this implant was originally described for use as a secondary implant, it has also been widely used as a primary implant at the time of enucleation. This prospective study evaluated the effectiveness of this implant used both primarily and secondarily. Forty-four patients were implanted between April 1990 and May 1991, 19 of the implants being primary and 25 secondary. A standardised operative and post-operative protocol was followed. The mean follow-up time was 31 months (range 24-36 months). The patients were evaluated for the degree of volume replacement, implant and associated prosthesis motility, secondary eyelid and socket problems, patient satisfaction, the need for further surgery and post-operative complications. The overall results achieved by primary implantation were superior to those of secondary implantation. Our results suggest that this implant provides a satisfactory functional and cosmetic rehabilitation of the anophthalmic patient with few complications.
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
References
Tyers AG, Collin JRO . Baseball orbital implants: a review of 39 patients. Br J Ophthalmol 985;69:438–42.
Smerdon DL, Sutton GA . Analysis of the factors involved in cosmetic failure following excision of the eye. Br J Ophthalmol 1988;72:768–73.
Smit TJ, Koornneef L . Is an implant always necessary after enucleation? Fortschr Ophthalmol 1990;87:533–6.
Tyers AG, Collin JRO . Orbital implants and post-enucleation socket syndrome. Trans Ophthalmol Soc UK 1982; 102:90–2.
Smit TJ, Koornneef L, Zonneveld FW, Groet E, Otto AJ . Primary and secondary implants in the anophthalmic orbit: preoperative and postoperative computed tomographic appearance. Ophthalmology 1991;98:106–10.
Mules PH . Evisceration of the globe with artificial vitreous. Trans Ophthalmol Soc UK 1885;5:200–6.
Allen JH, Allen L . A buried muscle cone implant. Arch Ophthalmol 1950;43:879–90.
Spivy BE, Allen L, Burns CA . The Iowa enucleation implant. Am J Ophthalmol 1969;67:171–8.
Atkins AD, Roper-Hall MJ . Magnetic orbital implants. Br J Ophthalmol 1983;67:315–6.
Smith B, Petrelli R . Dermis fat graft as a moveable implant within the muscle cone. Am J Ophthalmol 1978;85:62–6.
Tomb EH, Gearhart DF . A new magnetic orbital implant. Arch Ophthalmol 1954;52:763–8.
Ruedeman AD Jr. Use of a silicone implant for evisceration and enucleation. Am J Ophthalmol 1962;54:868.
Dutton JJ . Coralline hydroxyapatite as an ocular implant. Ophthalmology 1991;98:370–7.
Perry AC . Advances in enucleation. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 1991;4:173–7.
Frueh BR, Felker GV . Baseball implant: a method of secondary insertion of an intraorbital implant. Arch Ophthalmol 1976;94:429–30.
Smit TJ, Koornneef L, Mourits M, Groet E, Otto AJ . Primary versus secondary intraorbital implants. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 1990;6:115–8.
Hughes JD, Downes RN, Kemp E . The Mersilene covered intraorbital implant. Eye 1992;6:484–6.
Shields CL, Shields JA, De Potter P . Hydroxyapatite orbital implant after enucleation: experience with initial 100 consecutive cases. Arch Ophthalmol 1992;110:333–8.
Soll DB . Enucleation surgery: a new technique. Arch Ophthalmol 1972;87:196–7.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Leatherbarrow, B., Kwartz, J., Sunderland, S. et al. The ‘baseball’ orbital implant: A prospective study. Eye 8, 569–576 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.1994.139
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.1994.139