Amplitude of movements with conical or spherical implants in anophthalmic socket

Purpose: To evaluate the amplitude of movement in anophthalmic sockets reconstructed with conical or spherical orbital implants with and without an external ocular prosthesis (EOP), and whether the fornix depth could play a role. Methods: Prospective observational study involving unilateral anophthalmic sockets evaluated the amplitude of movement with conical (20 subjects) or spherical (16) non-porous orbital implants, with and without an EOP, having the contralateral eye as the control group. Standardized photographs were obtained in the four gaze directions and measurements were performed using the Image J software. The upper and lower fornix depths were measured using rulers. Results: Compared to the contralateral eye, the median movement amplitude without EOP was smaller with conical implants in supraduction (-0.88 mm, p=0.008), abduction (-2.26 mm, p<0.001) and adduction (-0.91 mm, p=0.008). Spherical implants had reduced movement only in abduction (-2.63 mm, p<0.001). Conical and spherical implants had similar amplitudes of movement in all versions, and were always smaller compared to the control. The median movement amplitude with the EOP was -3.05 mm (p=0.001) than without the EOP in abduction and -2.07 mm (p=0.020) in adduction, regardless of implant format. The fornix depth did not affect the orbital implants or EOP movement amplitude's median. Conclusion: Conical and spherical implants provide similar amplitude of movement and fornix depth did not have an influence on it. The amplitude of movement was significantly limited compared to the contralateral eye and was even more reduced if the EOP was in place with conical or spherical implant formats.

Automated summary

This study evaluated the movement amplitude of anophthalmic sockets reconstructed with different types of orbital implants, finding that conical and spherical implants provide similar movement amplitudes and that fornix depth does not influence this. The movement of the sockets was significantly limited compared to the contralateral eye, and even more so if an external ocular prosthesis was present.