Continuous versus Interrupted Sutures for Closure of Scleral Pocket and Conjunctiva after Evisceration and Placement of Acrylic Ocular Implant.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY Ophthalmic Research Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-24 DOI:10.1159/000545331
Ahmed Ali Amer, Hasan Naveed, Ibrahim Amer, Hamdy Osman Abdelrahman Osman, Mostafa Abdelrahman Ahmed Mohamed, Ashraf Mohammed GadElkareem, Ahmed Abdallah Elbarawy, Zisis Gatzioufas, Mohamed Elalfy, Mohamed A ElShafie
{"title":"Continuous versus Interrupted Sutures for Closure of Scleral Pocket and Conjunctiva after Evisceration and Placement of Acrylic Ocular Implant.","authors":"Ahmed Ali Amer, Hasan Naveed, Ibrahim Amer, Hamdy Osman Abdelrahman Osman, Mostafa Abdelrahman Ahmed Mohamed, Ashraf Mohammed GadElkareem, Ahmed Abdallah Elbarawy, Zisis Gatzioufas, Mohamed Elalfy, Mohamed A ElShafie","doi":"10.1159/000545331","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Various methods of conjunctival closure have been described, with no consensus of preference. We designed this study to compare continuous versus interrupted sutures for closure of scleral pocket and conjunctiva after evisceration and acrylic ocular implant installation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study was a retrospective comparative observational study conducted at South Valley University Hospital on all ocular evisceration cases with acrylic implants from 1 March 2019 to 31 March 2024. For each patient, clinical data were perused, including demographics, indications, clinical history, operative details, and postoperative follow-up data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-seven patients were included in this study. Twenty-seven were allocated to group A (continuous sutures) and 20 patients to group B (interrupted sutures). The mean age of patients was 38.52 ± 12.8 and 39.35 ± 14.5 in groups A and B, respectively (p value = 0.839). Males represented 51.9% (14/27) and 50% (10/20) of groups A and B, respectively (p value = 0.901). Absolute glaucoma was the indication in 5 (18.5%) and 3 (15%) patients in groups A and B, respectively; anterior staphyloma was the indication in 7 (25.9%) and 5 (25%) patients, respectively; and atrophia/phthisis was the indication in 6 (22.2%) and 5 (25%) patients, respectively, while old trauma was the indication in 9 (33.3%) and 7 (35%) patients, respectively, with p value = 0.769. The median size of the acrylic implant used was 20 mm in both groups. Patients were followed up on average in group A for 20.19 ± 3.2 months and in group B for 19.95 ± 3.4 months (p value = 0.812). No cases of infection or implant extrusion were observed in both groups. But in group B, there were 3 cases (15%) of wound dehiscence and implant exposure, while no reported cases in group A (0%) with clinically significant p value (0.029).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Continuous suturing for closure, as opposed to interrupted sutures, produces better wound outcomes when closing the scleral pocket and conjunctiva post evisceration and acrylic ocular implant installation.</p>","PeriodicalId":19662,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmic Research","volume":" ","pages":"285-291"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmic Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000545331","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Various methods of conjunctival closure have been described, with no consensus of preference. We designed this study to compare continuous versus interrupted sutures for closure of scleral pocket and conjunctiva after evisceration and acrylic ocular implant installation.

Methods: This study was a retrospective comparative observational study conducted at South Valley University Hospital on all ocular evisceration cases with acrylic implants from 1 March 2019 to 31 March 2024. For each patient, clinical data were perused, including demographics, indications, clinical history, operative details, and postoperative follow-up data.

Results: Forty-seven patients were included in this study. Twenty-seven were allocated to group A (continuous sutures) and 20 patients to group B (interrupted sutures). The mean age of patients was 38.52 ± 12.8 and 39.35 ± 14.5 in groups A and B, respectively (p value = 0.839). Males represented 51.9% (14/27) and 50% (10/20) of groups A and B, respectively (p value = 0.901). Absolute glaucoma was the indication in 5 (18.5%) and 3 (15%) patients in groups A and B, respectively; anterior staphyloma was the indication in 7 (25.9%) and 5 (25%) patients, respectively; and atrophia/phthisis was the indication in 6 (22.2%) and 5 (25%) patients, respectively, while old trauma was the indication in 9 (33.3%) and 7 (35%) patients, respectively, with p value = 0.769. The median size of the acrylic implant used was 20 mm in both groups. Patients were followed up on average in group A for 20.19 ± 3.2 months and in group B for 19.95 ± 3.4 months (p value = 0.812). No cases of infection or implant extrusion were observed in both groups. But in group B, there were 3 cases (15%) of wound dehiscence and implant exposure, while no reported cases in group A (0%) with clinically significant p value (0.029).

Conclusion: Continuous suturing for closure, as opposed to interrupted sutures, produces better wound outcomes when closing the scleral pocket and conjunctiva post evisceration and acrylic ocular implant installation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在剥离并植入丙烯酸眼球植入物后缝合巩膜袋和结膜时,连续缝合与间断缝合的对比。
介绍:各种结膜闭合的方法已经被描述,没有一致的偏好。我们设计了这项研究来比较连续缝线和间断缝线在巩膜袋和结膜切除和丙烯酸眼植入后的闭合。方法:本研究是对2019年3月1日至2024年3月31日在南谷大学医院进行的所有丙烯酸种植体眼内剜出病例的回顾性比较观察研究。每位患者的临床资料均被仔细阅读,包括人口统计学、适应症、临床病史、手术细节和术后随访数据。结果:本研究纳入47例患者。A组(连续缝合)27例,B组(间断缝合)20例。A、B组患者平均年龄分别为38.52±12.8岁和39.35±14.5岁(P值= 0.839)。A组雄性占51.9% (14\27),B组雄性占50% (10\20)(P值= 0.901)。A组和B组绝对青光眼分别为5例(18.5%)和3例(15%),前葡萄肿分别为7例(25.9%)和5例(25%),萎缩/肺结核分别为6例(22.2%)和5例(25%),旧创伤分别为9例(33.3%)和7例(35%),P值分别为0.769。两组使用的丙烯酸种植体的中位尺寸均为20mm。A组患者平均随访20.19±3.2个月,B组患者平均随访19.95±3.4个月(P值= 0.812)。两组均未见感染或种植体挤压。B组创面裂开、种植体外露3例(15%),A组无报告(0%),P值有临床意义(0.029)。结论:在巩膜袋和结膜摘除术和丙烯酸眼植入后,连续缝合缝合比间断缝合缝合伤口效果更好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Ophthalmic Research
Ophthalmic Research 医学-眼科学
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
4.80%
发文量
75
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: ''Ophthalmic Research'' features original papers and reviews reporting on translational and clinical studies. Authors from throughout the world cover research topics on every field in connection with physical, physiologic, pharmacological, biochemical and molecular biological aspects of ophthalmology. This journal also aims to provide a record of international clinical research for both researchers and clinicians in ophthalmology. Finally, the transfer of information from fundamental research to clinical research and clinical practice is particularly welcome.
期刊最新文献
Efficacy of Faricimab in Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Single-Arm Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Corneal Fluorescein Staining in FDA-Reviewed Dry Eye Registrational Clinical Trials: Evidence of Limited Endpoint Responsiveness. Long-Term Trends in the Global Burden of Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Sex Differences, Aging Effects, and Future Projections in Middle-Aged and Older Adults. Changes of Schlemm's canal and trabecular meshwork dimensions from digital ocular massage in high myopia: a pilot study. Efficacy of Initial Intravitreal Faricimab Injection after Switching from Aflibercept to Faricimab in Treatment-Resistant Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1