↓ Skip to main content

Integrated versus non-integrated orbital implants for treating anophthalmic sockets

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Integrated versus non-integrated orbital implants for treating anophthalmic sockets
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010293.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Silvana Schellini, Regina El Dib, Leandro RE Silva, Joyce G Farat, Yuqing Zhang, Eliane C Jorge

Abstract

Anophthalmia is the absence of one or both eyes, and it can be congenital (i.e. a birth defect) or acquired later in life. There are two main types of orbital implant: integrated, whereby the implant receives a blood supply from the body that allows for the integration of the prosthesis within the tissue; and non-integrated, where the implant remains separate. Despite the remarkable progress in anophthalmic socket reconstruction and in the development of various types of implants, there are still uncertainties about the real roles of integrated (hydroxyapatite (HA), porous polyethylene (PP), composites) and non-integrated (polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA)/acrylic and silicone) orbital implants in anophthalmic socket treatment. To assess the effects of integrated versus non-integrated orbital implants for treating anophthalmic sockets. We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 7), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to August 2016), Embase (January 1980 to August 2016), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to August 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 8 August 2016. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of integrated and non-integrated orbital implants for treating anophthalmic sockets. Two authors independently selected relevant trials, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. We included three studies with a total of 284 participants (250 included in analysis). The studies were conducted in India, Iran and the Netherlands. The three studies were clinically heterogenous, comparing different materials and using different surgical techniques. None of the included studies used a peg (i.e. a fixing pin used to connect the implant to the prosthesis). In general the trials were poorly reported, and we judged them to be at unclear risk of bias.One trial compared HA using traditional enucleation versus alloplastic implantation using evisceration (N = 100). This trial was probably not masked. The second trial compared PP with scleral cap enucleation versus PMMA with either myoconjunctival or traditional enucleation (N = 150). Although participants were not masked, outcome assessors were. The last trial compared HA and acrylic using the enucleation technique (N = 34) but did not report comparative effectiveness data.In the trial comparing HA versus alloplastic implantation, there was no evidence of any difference between the two groups with respect to the proportion of successful procedures at one year (risk ratio (RR) 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.09, N = 100, low-certainty evidence). People receiving HA had slightly worse horizontal implant mobility compared to the alloplastic group (mean difference (MD) -3.35 mm, 95% CI -4.08 to -2.62, very low-certainty evidence) and slightly worse vertical implant motility (MD -2.76 mm, 95% CI -3.45 to -2.07, very low-certainty evidence). As different techniques were used - enucleation versus evisceration - it is not clear whether these differences in implant motility can be attributed solely to the type of material. Investigators did not report adverse events.In the trial comparing PP versus PMMA, there was no evidence of any difference between the two groups with respect to the proportion of successful procedures at one year (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01, N = 150, low-certainty evidence). There was very low-certainty evidence of a difference in horizontal implant motility depending on whether PP was compared to PMMA with traditional enucleation (MD 1.96 mm, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.91) or PMMA with myoconjunctival enucleation (-0.57 mm, 95% CI -1.63 to 0.49). Similarly, for vertical implant motility, there was very low-certainty evidence of a difference in the comparison of PP to PMMA traditional (MD 3.12 mm 95% CI 2.36 to 3.88) but no evidence of a difference when comparing PP to PMMA myoconjunctival (MD -0.20 mm 95% CI -1.28 to 0.88). Four people in the PP group (total N = 50) experienced adverse events (i.e. exposures) compared to 6/100 in the PMMA groups (RR 17.82, 95% CI 0.98 to 324.67, N = 150, very low-certainty evidence).None of the studies reported socket sphere size, cosmetic effect or quality of life measures. Current very low-certainty evidence from three small published randomised controlled trials did not provide sufficient evidence to assess the effect of integrated and non-integrated material orbital implants for treating anophthalmic sockets. This review underlines the need to conduct further well-designed trials in this field.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 21%
Student > Bachelor 12 14%
Other 10 12%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 18 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 22 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 February 2020.
All research outputs
#4,289,109
of 15,641,651 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,919
of 11,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,295
of 293,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#114
of 169 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,641,651 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,228 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.3. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 293,457 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 169 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.