ArticleCureus2022
An Orbital Mystery: A Unique Case of an Obsolete Orbital Implant With a Review of Orbital Implant Materials.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Orbital implant materials have evolved greatly over the past century and include but are not limited to metal, ceramic, polymer, silicone, and glass. Knowledge of historically used materials is clinically relevant to patient care as certain materials carry a greater risk of migration, extrusion, infection, and limitations for imaging modalities utilized to visualize adjacent structures. We report an unusual case of an 80-year-old male who presented to our community hospital with seizure-like activity. CT imaging of the brain revealed several white matter and cortex lesions with the largest lesion measuring 2.5 × 2 × 1.9 cm. The patient had a history of enucleation with placement of an orbital implant following a penetrating injury to the left eye at four years of age. Hounsfield scale analysis was read by radiology as being most consistent with a thin metallic shell surrounding the orbital implant. The potential for metallic material was consistent with the implant's age and time of placement. Few reviews on ocular implant materials from this period exist in the current medical literature. A single case report discussing a hollow metal orbital implant with similar-appearing imaging was identified. Due to concern for possible metal implant materials, the patient underwent implant exchange so MRI imaging could safely be performed. Intraoperatively, the implant was identified as a clear, hollow, non-metallic, non-porous polymer sphere. Following surgery, the patient was able to undergo appropriate neuroimaging with subsequent diagnostic biopsy. Current literature reviewing CT or photographic imaging of ocular implant devices prior to the 1940s is limited. This case highlights the importance of detailing materials historically used in orbital implants, their effects on clinical decision-making, and the utility of Hounsfield scale values to identify a material's radiodensity on CT imaging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.