Fibrovascularization of Porous Polyethylene (Medpor) Orbital Implant in a Rabbit Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the porous polyethylene (Medpor) orbital implant in a rabbit model and compare it with three other currently available porous implants: Bio-Eye coralline hydroxyapatite (HA), FCI(3) synthetic HA, and aluminum oxide (Bioceramic). METHODS: The porous polyethylene implant was examined macroscopically and microscopically (with scanning electron microscopy). Implantation was performed in 10 adult male New Zealand albino rabbits. Each animal underwent enucleation of the right globe under general halothane gas anesthesia, followed by placement of a 12-mm porous polyethylene implant. In 5 animals, the implant was encased in polyglactin 910 (Vicryl mesh); in the other 5, it was left unwrapped. The implants were moistened in saline before placement. Implant vascularization was evaluated by histopathology at 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24 weeks. RESULTS: The porous polyethylene implant was found to have a smoother exterior surface than the Bio-Eye, FCI(3) synthetic HA, and aluminum oxide implants. Rather than a uniform interconnected porous architecture, there was an extensive system of interconnected channels through the implant, ranging in size from 125 to 1000 microm. On high-power examination there was a more solid, woven appearance without any sign of the microcrystals seen in the other porous implants. One rabbit had a retrobulbar hemorrhage after surgery and was euthanized. All the other rabbits tolerated the implant well, and there were no complications. On histopathologic examination, fibrovascularization gradually increased over time. One implant was completely vascularized at 12 weeks, and both implants harvested at 16 weeks were completely vascularized. The implant harvested at 24 weeks showed only partial vascularization (14%). CONCLUSIONS: The porous polyethylene orbital implant represents an alternative implant for use after enucleation or evisceration or for secondary implantation. In our rabbit model, the porous polyethylene implant was well tolerated without complication. Complete fibrovascularization was first seen at 12 weeks. Porous polyethylene orbital implants appear to vascularize more slowly than Bio-Eye coralline HA, FCI(3) synthetic HA, and aluminum oxide implants.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".