Objective: To evaluate implant and prosthesis movement after myoconjunctival enucleation and subsequent polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) implantation, compared with the traditional enucleation with muscle imbrication using a PMMA implant and with enucleation accompanied by porous polyethylene implantation.
Design: Randomized, controlled, observer-masked, interventional study.
Participants: One hundred fifty patients, equally and randomly allocated to the 3 groups.
Intervention: Group 1 consisted of patients in whom a PMMA implant was used after enucleation with muscle imbrication (traditional PMMA group). Group 2 consisted of patients in whom a PMMA implant was used after enucleation with a myoconjunctival technique (myoconjunctival PMMA group). Group 3 consisted of patients in whom a porous polyethylene implant was used after enucleation by the scleral cap technique (porous polyethylene group). Fifty patients were included in each group. Patients were allocated to 1 of the 3 groups using stratified randomization. Informed consent was obtained. Acrylic prostheses custom made by a trained ocularist were fitted 6 weeks after surgery in all patients. A masked observer measured implant and prosthesis movement 6 weeks after surgery using a slit-lamp device with real-time video and still photographic documentation. Analysis of implant and prosthesis movement was carried out using the Mann-Whitney U test, and a P value of < or =0.03 was considered significant. Complications including implant displacement and exposure also were noted.
Main outcome measures: Implant and prosthesis movement.
Results: Myoconjunctival PMMA implant movement was better than the traditional PMMA implant (P = 0.001), but was similar to that of the porous polyethylene implant. Prosthesis movement with the myoconjunctival PMMA implant was better than that of either the traditional PMMA (P = 0.001) or porous polyethylene (P = 0.002) implants.
Conclusions: Myoconjunctival enucleation technique with a PMMA implant provides statistically and clinically significantly better implant and prosthesis movement than the traditional PMMA implant and better prosthesis movement than the porous polyethylene implant.
Copyright 2010 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.