PL EN


Preferences help
enabled [disable] Abstract
Number of results
Journal
2015 | 2 | 4 | 292-298
Article title

Usunięcie gałki ocznej – techniki i wskazania

Authors
Content
Title variants
EN
Enucleation and evisceration – techniques and indications
Languages of publication
PL
Abstracts
EN
In the paper the problems of eyeball removal (cosmetic, post-enucleation socket syndrome, post-operative prostheses mobility and conjunctival atrophy) are described and advantages and disadvantages of different surgical methods of eyeball removal (enucleation, evisceration) are discussed. The choice of surgical method depending on indication for eyeball removal is also discussed.
PL
Celem pracy jest przedstawienie problemów związanych z usunięciem gałki ocznej (problemy kosmetyczne, poenukleacyjny zespół oczodołu, pooperacyjna ruchomość protezy i zanik spojówki) oraz opisanie wad i zalet różnych metod tego zabiegu (enukleacja, ewisceracja). Omówiono również wybór tych metod w zależności od wskazań do usunięcia gałki.
Keywords
Discipline
Publisher
Journal
Year
Volume
2
Issue
4
Pages
292-298
Physical description
References
  • 1. Phan LT, Hwang TN, McCulley TJ. Evisceration in the modern age. MEAJO 2012; 19: 24-33.
  • 2. Green WR, Maumenee AE, Sanders TE, Smith ME. Sympathetic uveitis following evisceration. Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol 1972; 76: 625-644.
  • 3. Prost M. Wszczepy oczodołowe w leczeniu poenukleacyjnego zespołu oczodołu. Okulistyka 2008; XI: 13-19.
  • 4. Culler AM. Orbital implants after enucleation; basic principles of anatomy and physiology of the orbit and relation to implant surgery. Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol 1952; 56: 17-20.
  • 5. Smit TJ, Koornneef L, Zonneveld FW. Computed tomography in the assessment of the postenucleation socket syndrome. Ophthalmology 1990; 97: 1347-1351.
  • 6. Tyers AG, Collin JR. Orbital implants and post enucleation socket syndrome. Trans Ophthalmol Soc UK 1982; 102(1): 90-92.
  • 7. Mules PH. Evisceration of the globe with artificial vitreous. Trans Ophthalmol Soc UK 1885; 5: 200-206.
  • 8. Kelley JJ. History of ocular prosthesis. Int Ophthalmol Clin 1970; 10: 713-719.
  • 9. Sami D, Young S, Petersen R. Perspective on orbital enucleation implants. Surv Ophthalmol 2001; 52: 244-265.
  • 10. Chalasani R, Poole-Warren L, Conway RM, Ben-Nissan B. Porous implants in enucleation: a systematic review. Surv Ophthalmol 2007; 52: 145-155.
  • 11. Bigham WJ, Stanley P, Cahill JM. Fibrovascular ingrowth in porous orbital implants: the effect of the material composition, porosity, growth factors, and coatings. Ophthal Plast Resconstr Surg 1999; 15: 317-325.
  • 12. Rubin PA, Popham JK, Bilyk JR, Shore JW. Comparison of fibrovascular ingrowth into hydroxyapatite and porous polyethylene orbital implants. Ophthal Plast Resconstr Surg 1994; 10: 96-103.
  • 13. Hing KA, Best SM, Tanner KE, et al. Mediation of bone ingrowth in porous hydroxyapatite bone graft substitutes. J Biomed Mater Res 2004; 68: 187-200.
  • 14. De Potter P, Shields CI, Shields JA, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of the hydroxyapatite orbital implant. Ophthalmology 1992; 99: 824-830.
  • 15. Prost ME. Ewisceracja gałki – powrót dawnej metody leczenia chirurgicznego. Referat wygłoszony na XLVI Zjeździe Okulistów Polskich, Poznań 18–20.06.2015.
Document Type
article
Publication order reference
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.psjd-d71bb6df-e6d9-4ecc-9657-fb88bd7161d2
Identifiers
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.