Long-Term Follow-Up of Osseointegrated Orbital Prosthetic Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Osseointegrated implants have been used for craniofacial prosthetic reconstruction since 1979. The authors sought to review long-term outcomes of osseointegrated orbital reconstruction at the Institute for Reconstructive Sciences in Medicine (iRSM). METHODS: Twenty-six patients have undergone osseointegrated orbital prosthetic (OOP) reconstruction at iRSM since 1991. A retrospective chart review was performed and patient satisfaction assessed through a questionnaire used in previous osseointegration studies. Multivariate binary logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the relationship between smoking, age, sex, and previous radiation treatment with the occurrence of skin reactions and implant failures. A χ test was used to assess the relationship between implant position within the orbit and development of a skin reaction or implant failure. RESULTS: Patients received an average of 5.8 implants during the course of treatment. Follow-up ranged from 6 months to 24 years (mean = 10.6 years). A statistically significant correlation was found between skin reaction and age (P = 0.022), with younger patients more likely to develop a reaction. No variables in our model were significant for predicting implant failure. Overall, there were 39 failures of 155 osseointegrated implants, for a success rate of 74.8%. There was no relationship between skin reaction and implant failure compared to implant position within the orbit. Survey responses were received from 11 of 19 patients (58% response rate). Ninety-one percent of patients were overall satisfied with their prosthesis. CONCLUSIONS: There are minimal contraindications for consideration of OOP reconstruction. Patients find their prosthesis comfortable, report increased self-confidence, and are happy to have undergone reconstruction.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".