Orbital Implants and Prosthesis: Ocularist Perspective

  • Kuldeep RaizadaEmail author
  • Deepa Raizada


Eye Removal Surgery (enucleation, evisceration) is often considered as a lost battle in ophthalmology as there is no hope for restoring vision. The technique of eye removal is constantly evolving. A major focus of research and development in the last couple of decades is the newer materials for orbital implant and improvement in prosthesis motility. Porous materials are currently preferred primarily because of vascularization and integration that occur. These implants are less likely to migrate than silicone or PMMA implants and are associated with better prosthesis motility especially when coupled with a peg. However, hydroxyapatite and porous polyethylene are significantly more expensive and are associated with higher rates of exposure than traditional non integrated implants. Wrapping or “capping” these implants appears to reduce the exposure rate to acceptable levels. Implant size is crucial and should be customized. Implant motility is primarily determined by the attachment of extraocular muscles the implant. Placement of wrapped silicone or PMMA implant with extraocular muscle attachment provides excellent results in patients who do not wish to consider a motility peg placement. Porous implants should be used in patients who are keen on further enhanced motility. Sufferers bears the stigma of disfigurement and some gets disturbed psychologically. One simple solution in most of these cases is to fit a custom-designed ocular prosthesis (or an artificial eye) that looks like a natural eye and can even move (to varied extent in different conditions). They may not retain the eye sight but they can face life with a great confidence [1, 2, 3, 4]. The psychological aspects of loss of an eye should always be addressed by the oculoplastic surgeon and the ocularist and patients may even need the help of a clinical psychologist particularly in children and young adults. Organizing meetings with the ocularist prior to eye removal surgery can be helpful in this regard [21].


Enucleation Evisceration Disfigured eyes Prosthetic eye Custom artificial eyes Digital eye prosthesis 

Suggested Readings

  1. 1.
    Older JJ. Enucleation. In: Levine MR, editor. Manual of oculoplastic surgery. 2nd ed. Boston, Mass: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1996. p. 245–54.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shore JW. Evisceration. In: Levine MR, editor. Manual of oculoplastic surgery. 2nd ed. Boston, Mass: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1996. p. 245–54.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Custer PL, Reistad CE. Enucleation of blind, painful eyes. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;16:326–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Woog JJ, Angrist RC, White WL, Dortzbach RK. Enucleation, evisceration and exenteration. In: Dortzbach RK, editor. Ophthalmic plastic surgery: prevention and management of complications. New York: Raven Press Ltd; 1994. p. 251–68.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Slonim MD, Martino MD. Eye was there: a patient’s guide to coping with the loss of an eye (Kindle Locations 1080–1094), Kindle Edition. Bloomington: AuthorHouse, Bloomington; 2011.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaltreider, Sara AMD. The ideal ocular prosthesis: analysis of prosthetic volume. Ophthal Plastic Reconst Surg. 2000;16(5):388–92.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Perry AC. Integrated orbital implants. Adv Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 1988; 8.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dutton JJ. Coralline hydroxyapatite as an ocular implant. Ophthalmology. 1991;98:370–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jordan DR, et al. The bioceramic orbital implant: a new generation of porous implants. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;16:347–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rivera-Munoz E, Diaz JR, Rogelio Rodriguez J, Brostow W, Castano VM. spheres with controlled porosity for eye ball prosthesis: processing and characterization. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2001;12:305–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ruedemann AD. Plastic eye implant. Am J Ophthalmol. 1946;29:947–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thaller VT. Enucleation volume measurement. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997;13(1):18–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shome D, Honavar SG, Raizada K, Raizada D. Implant and prosthesis movement after enucleation: a randomized controlled trial. Ophthalmology. 2010;117(8):1638–44. Epub 2010 Apr 2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Raizada K, Rani D, Ocular prosthesis. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2007 Jul;30(3):152–62. Epub 2007 Feb 22. Review.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Allen L, Webster HE. Modified impression method of artificial eye fitting. Am J Ophthalmol. 1969;67(2):189–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jahrling ER. The Making of a Hollow Prosthetic Eye. J ASO. 1986;17:31–3.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kelly KV. The SLP, self-lubricating prosthesis, 25th ed. 1994, American Society of Ocularists; 1994. p. 26–30.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Patel BCK. The Interim Cosmetic Shell: a new technique. Ruedemann Lecture, American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons and American Society of Ocularists, Las Vegas, 17 Nov 2006.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Patel BC, Sapp NA, Collin R. Standardized range of conformers and symblepharon rings. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;14(2):144–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Patel BC, Sapp NA, Collin JR. Cosmetic conformers. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 1997;28(2):171–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Raizada K, Murthy R, Honavar SG. Ocular prosthesis with lower lid augmentation for disfigured lids following chemical burns. J Ophthalmic Prosthes. 2006;II(1):Fall.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jerome L, Boisvert J-S, Kashyap R. Next generation artificial eyes with dynamic iris. Int J Ophthalmol Clin Res. 2016;3.
  23. 23.
    Custer PL. Enucleation: past, present, and future. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;16:316–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Downes R. Orbital implants: food for thought. Eye. 1996;10:1–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ashworth JL, et al. The hydroxyapatite orbital implant: a prospective study. Eye. 1996;10:29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jordan DR, et al. The molteno m-sphere. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;16:356–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jordan DR, et al. Brazilian hydroxyapatite implant. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;16:363–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gray PHK. Radiography of ancient Egyptian mummies. Med Radiogr Photogr. 1976;43:34–44.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gordon B. The ancient origins of artificial eyes. In: Annuals of medical history, vol. 2, 3th ed. New York, 1940.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gougelmann HP. The evolution of the ocular motility implant. In: Connelly FJ, Shannon GM, editors. Oculoplastic surgery and prosthetics. international ophthalmology clinics. Boston: Little Brown; 1970. p. 689–711.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Martin O, Clodious L. The history of artificial eyes. Ann Plastic Surg. 1979;3:168–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Handley N. Artificial eyes and the artificialisation of the human face. In: Timmermann C, Anderson J, editors. Devices and designs: medical technologies in historical perspective. Basingstoke: Palgrave; 2006. p. 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    He Y, Xue GH, Fu JZ. Fabrication of low cost soft tissue prostheses with the desktop 3D printer. Sci Rep. 2014;27(4):6973.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ocular ProsthesisInternational Prosthetic Eye CenterHyderabadIndia
  2. 2.International Prosthetic Eye CenterHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations