Complications of Orbital Implants: A Review of 542 Patients Who Have Undergone Orbital Implantation and 275 Subsequent Peg Placements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To inform patients and physicians of the complications associated with three commonly used orbital implants, as well as associated anophthalmic socket issues. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 542 patients who underwent eviscerations, enucleations and secondary procedures by one surgeon (Dr. James Oestreicher) was completed, paying special attention to complications in the follow-up period prior to pegging, as well as those that occurred post-pegging. RESULTS: Approximately 60% of patients experienced complications prior to implant drilling, with discharge being the most prevalent (15.9%). Secondary procedures were associated with significantly greater complication rates prior to implant drilling. Silicone implants had significantly less pre-pegging pyogenic granuloma (P = 0.011) and hypo-ophthalmos (P = 0.042) than the other implant types. Seven implants had to be removed due to exposure. Implant drilling and peg placement were performed in 275 patients. Implant drilling complications were experienced by 67.4% of pegged patients, with a change in discharge from prior to pegging (27.2%) being the most prevalent. Plastic peg systems had a significantly higher incidence of complications than titanium systems. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of orbital implantations involve complications, these being largely minor ones which resolve spontaneously or are easily treated. Secondary implant procedures involve a higher likelihood of complications. Silicone implants have the smallest amount of complications. Should patients decide to undergo pegging, evidence sides strongly for the use of a titanium peg and sleeve system over the other peg types. Implant removal is a rare event; occurring in 1.3% (n = 7) of the study population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".