Late porou polyethylene implant expoure after motility coupling pot placement

Purpoe To report the probable aociation of motility coupling pot placement and late porou polyethylene implant expoure. Deign Retropective, obervational cae erie. Method Thi wa a retropective analyi of 27 patient who had primary porou polyethylene orbital implantation from February 1999 to November 2000. Data on demographic, previou urgery, ocular diagnoi, type of urgery, ize of the implant, and motility coupling pot placement were collected. Complication of porou polyethylene implant and implant expoure were documented. Reult Among the 27 patient, 18 eye (66.7%) received motility coupling pot inertion after primary porou polyethylene implantation. Implant expoure occurred in ix (33.3%) of the 18 eye with motility coupling pot inertion. None of the eye without inertion had implant expoure. The mean interval between porou polyethylene implantation and motility coupling pot placement for the implant expoure group (6 of 18) wa 6.5 ± 0.4 month, which wa not tatitically ignificant compared with 7.2 ± 0.6 month in the nonexpoure group (12 of 18). For thee 6 cae of implant expoure, the mean interval between implantation and implant expoure wa 24.2 ± 11.8 month, and the mean interval between pegging and expoure wa 17.6 ± 11.7 month. Among thee 6 patient, 4 underwent removal of expoed porou polyethylene implant and reimplantation of hydroxyapatite implant or dermi fat recontruction. Concluion We found a trend (P = .07) of increaing rik of porou polyethylene implant expoure with motility coupling pot placement. Although the pegging group did not how a tatitically ignificant higher rate of expoure compared with the nonpegging group, we believe that more care wa needed when performing motility coupling pot placement. In addition, longer potoperative follow-up i needed after inertion of a motility coupling pot.