Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.57(2) > 1010475

Bae, You, and Ahn: Effects of Contracted Anophthalmic Socket Reconstruction with Oral Mucosa Graft

Abstract

Purpose

This study is executed to identify and report the treatment effects of oral mucosa grafting of prosthetic eye patients who have shallow conjunctival socket caused by socket contraction.

Methods

Conjunctival sac reconstruction was performed by using the lower lip mucosa to 11 eyes of 11 patients diagnosed with contracted conjunctival sac at the ophthalmic clinic from August 2009 to May 2015, and a retrospective analysis was performed with medical record data from the patients who were followed-up after surgery.

Results

Within the follow-up period, prosthetic eye insertion was possible for all 11 eyes of the 11 patients. All of them were satisfied in an aesthetic aspect, and were able to maintain deep conjunctival sac without receving findings of graft absorption, or re-contracted or shallow conjunctival sac during the follow-up period. On the donor region, normal epithelialization occurred. Concerning the donor region for the first week after surgery, the mean score of the patients' pain was 3.18 ± 0.94 points measured by a numerical rating scale, and no infection, bleeding, contraction, or cicatrix was revealed during the follow-up period. There were hypoesthesia, pararthria, and paresthesia (tingling sense) for post-complications from the donor region, and four patients out of the 11 patients complained of discomfort resulting from post-complications; whereas the remaining seven patients did not complain of discomfort.

Conclusions

Oral mucosa can be considered as a good graft for contracted conjunctival sac reconstruction for patients who cannot wear a prosthetic eye.

REFERENCES

1). Soll DB. Reconstruction of a contracted socket. The use of an expandable silicone tire. Arch Ophthalmol. 1969; 82:218–9.
2). Guyuron B. Retroauricular island flap for eye socket reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1985; 76:527–33.
crossref
3). Molgat YM, Hurtwitz JJ, Webb MC. Buccal mucous membrane-fat graft in the management of the contracted socket. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 1993; 9:267–72.
crossref
4). Suh IS, Yang YM, Oh SJ. Conjunctival cul-de-sac reconstruction with radial forearm free flap in anophthalmic orbit syndrome. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001; 107:914–9.
crossref
5). Lee AC, Fedorovich I, Heinz GW, Kikkawa DO. Socket reconstruction with combined mucous membrane and hard palate mucosal grafts. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 2002; 33:463–8.
crossref
6). Sullivan SA, Dailey RA. Graft contraction: a comparison of acellular dermis versus hard palate mucosa in lower eyelid surgery. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003; 19:14–24.
7). Han JM, Choi HJ, Wee WR, et al. A case of alkali burn treated with amniotic membrane graft and forniceal reconstruction. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2010; 51:1010–5.
crossref
8). Ballen PH. Mucous membrane grafts in chemical (lye) burns. Am J Ophthalmol. 1963; 55:302–12.
crossref
9). Lee SH, Kim JH, Kim JT, et al. A case of ocular surface reconstruction using nasal and oral mucosa autograft. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2008; 49:1177–82.
crossref
10). Serin D, Karslıoğlu Ş, Akbaba M, et al. Clinical evaluation of 188 patients with contracted socket. Surgery Curr Res. 2014; 4:203.
crossref
11). Soll DB. The anophthalmic socket. Ophthalmology. 1982; 89:407–23.
crossref
12). Soll DB. Management of the anophthalmic socket and techniques of enucleation, evisceration, and exenteration: surgical procedures and management of complications. Tasman W, Jaeger EA, editors. Duane's Clinical Ophthalmology. revised ed.Philadelphia: JB Lippincott;1993. v. 5:chap. 83.
13). Lee TS, Hwang SJ, Oh JH. Forniceal reconstruction through subciliary approach in a patient with shallow inferior fornix. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2007; 48:611–7.
14). Yang YH, Ahn M. Outcomes of autogenous dermis fat grafting with different donor sites in exposed porous orbital implants. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2013; 54:545–51.
crossref
15). Yoon KC, Ji YS, Park YG. Management of exposed hydroxyapatite implant with acellular dermal allograft. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2005; 46:927–32.
16). Rubin PA, Fay AM, Remulla HD, Maus M. Ophthalmic plastic applications of acellular dermal allografts. Ophthalmology. 1999; 106:2091–7.
crossref
17). Oh DE, Kim YD. Reconstruction of contracted anophthalmic socket with acellular dermal allograft. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2008; 49:377–83.
crossref
18). Sclafani AP, Romo T 3rd, Jacono AA, et al. Evaluation of acellular dermal graft (AlloDerm) sheet for soft tissue augmentation: a 1-year follow-up of clinical observations and histological findings. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2001; 3:101–3.
19). Kim JH, Chun YS, Lee SH, et al. Ocular surface reconstruction with autologous nasal mucosa in cicatricial ocular surface disease. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010; 149:45–53.
crossref
20). Kim YM, Son MG, Kim YD. Hard palate mucosa grafts for lower lid retraction. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2000; 41:2319–26.

Figure 1.
Pre- and postoperative photo. (A) Postoperative photograph taken 11 days after the operation, conjunctival fornix reconstruction, upper. (B) Postoperative photograph taken 11 days after the operation, conjunctival fornix reconstruction, lower.
jkos-57-188f1.tif
Figure 2.
Lower lip donor site. (A) Preoperative photograph. (B) Intraoperative photograph. (C) Postoperative photograph taken 4 days after the operation. (D) Postoperative photograph taken 11 days after the operation.
jkos-57-188f2.tif
Table 1.
Grading of conjunctival socket contraction
Mild Scarring or shortening of usually one fornix, mild contraction of the conjunctival surface. Patient can still wear an artificial eye.
Moderate Shortening of both fornices and/or some contraction in the central socket. Patient can wear an artificial eye with difficulty or not at all.
Severe Total or near total contraction of the socket. Fornices usually indiscernible. Patient cannot wear an artificial eye.
Table 2.
Summary of patients
No. Age (years) Sex Eye Type of surgery Cause Removal time (years old) Time to contracture after removal (years) Chief complaint
1 53 M R Ev Trauma 39 14 Dis
2 67 M R Ev Trauma 50 17 Dis
3 51 F R Unknown Unknown 20 29 Dis
4 36 M R En Trauma 20 16 Dis
5 50 M L - Burn - - Dis
6 64 M R En Unknown 14 50 Devi
7 51 F R En Trauma 38 13 Devi
8 58 M L Ev Trauma 48 10 Dis
9 57 F R En Trauma 21 36 Dis
10 57 M R Ev Trauma 42 15 Tight
11 79 M L En Endophthalmitis 69 10 Dis

M = male; F = female; R = right; L = left; Ev = evisceration; En = enucleation; Dis = spontaneous dislocation of prosthesis; Devi = deviation of prosthesis.

Table 3.
Summary of 11 operations, conjunctival sac reconstruction
No. Degree of contraction Contraction site Site of using oral mucosa Oral mucosa graft size (cm) Use of othrer graft Site of using other graft
1 Mi U U 4 × 2 None -
2 Mo U & L U & L 4.5 × 2 None -
3 Mi L L 3 × 2 None -
4 Mo U & L U 4 × 2 SureDerm® L
5 Mo U & L U 2 × 2.5 SureDerm® L
6 Mo U & L U 4 × 2 SureDerm® L
7 Mo U & L U 4 × 2 SureDerm® L
8 Mo U & L U & L 4 × 2 None -
9 Mo U & L U 3 × 2.5 SureDerm® L
10 Mi L L 3 × 2.5 None -
11 Mo U & L U 4 × 2 SureDerm® L

Mi = miild; Mo = moderrate; U = upper; L = lower.

Table 4.
Complications of donor site
No. Observation time (years) NRS Time to epithelization (weeks) Answer* Late phase complication
1 1 3 4 No Hypoesthesia
2 5 3 3 Yes -
3 4 2 3 Yes Hypoesthesia
4 5 2 2 Yes -
5 5 5 3 No -
6 5 3 3 Yes Hypoesthesia, tingling sensation
7 5 3 2 Yes -
8 5 3 3 Yes -
9 4 3 3 Yes -
10 1 3 3 Yes -
11 2/12 5 5 No Hypoesthesia, numbness

NRS = numerical rating scale of pain.

* Answer to the question whether can graft oral mucosa again or not.

TOOLS
Similar articles