Integrated hydroxyapatite implant and non-integrated implants in enucleated Asian patients.

INTRODUCTION This study compares the outcome and complications of integrated hydroxyapatite implant and non-integrated orbital implants following enucleation in Asian patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS This is a retrospective study of enucleated patients with coralline hydroxyapatite implants versus non-integrated implants (acrylic, glass and silicone) at the Singapore National Eye Centre from January 1991 to December 2000. The outcomes measured were implant migration, extrusion, socket infection, conjunctival dehiscence and implant exposure. Statistical analysis was done using the 2-sample t-test. RESULTS Twenty-one patients had the hydroxyapatite implant and 38 non-integrated implants (27 acrylic, 9 glass and 2 silicone). The mean duration of follow-up was 2.7 years and 4 years for the hydroxyapatite implant and non-integrated implants respectively. Three patients with pre-existing severe socket contracture before enucleation surgeries were excluded from the study. Four cases of implant migration, 4 cases of implant extrusion and 3 cases of socket infection were encountered; all were sockets fitted with non-integrated implants. There was a higher rate of conjunctival dehiscence for sockets with hydroxyapatite implants (6 out of 21) compared to sockets with non-integrated implants (3 out of 35). This was statistically significant (P = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS Implant complications of migration, extrusion and socket infection were found in non-integrated implants and none in coralline hydroxyapatite implants, which had a significantly higher rate of conjunctival dehiscence. Most of these were easily managed with only a small number progressing to implant exposure.