The traditional use of the Crawford tube for lacrimal intubation during dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) carries several drawbacks. We describe the use of the STENTube for DCR intubation and detail its advantages. Retrospective, noncomparative, interventional case series; 313 patients with nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO) underwent 339 DCRs (216 external, 123 endonasal) with the STENTube from January 2007 - June 2013 by 5 surgeons (RS, QN, TS, SB, TN) across 3 institutions (SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Texas Oculoplastics Consultants, and Moorfields Eye Hospital). Study outcome measures included patient demographics, surgical complications, and epiphora improvement/resolution. 206 (66%) females and 107 (34%) males had a mean age of 63 years (range 2-94 years). Distribution of diagnoses included: 314 complete idiopathic acquired NLDO, 20 partial idiopathic acquired NLDO, and 5 congenital complete NLDO. 316 (93%) were primary DCRs and 23 (7%) were revisions. Epiphora improved in 312 (92%) cases with 294 (86%) experiencing resolution with patent lacrimal irrigation at a mean last follow-up of 9.4 months. Twenty-eight (8%) patients experienced surgical complications with 16 (5%) experiencing tube prolapse, and 20 (6%) requiring re-operation. The STENTube represents a simple method for lacrimal intubation during external or endonasal DCR at a comparable cost to the Crawford tube. It allows for low prolapse rates without the need for additional endonasal fixation procedures, resulting in a simple and comfortable post-operative extraction without risk of lacrimal trauma. The STENTube is our preferred intubation technique during DCR, and should be considered by oculofacial surgeons performing DCR with intubation.

Orbital floor fractures (OFF) with entrapment require prompt clinical and radiographic recognition for timely surgical correction. Correct CT radiographic interpretation of entrapped fractures can be subtle and thus missed. We reviewed the clinical, radiographic and intraoperative findings of 45 cases of entrapped OFF to correlate pre- and intraoperative findings with radiography. Retrospective review and statistical analysis of 45 patients with OFF using the chi squared and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Main outcome measures included patient demographics, clinical features, radiologic interpretation, intraoperative findings, and treatment outcomes. Twenty-one cases (47%) had radiologic evaluations of orbital CT scans that included commentary on possible entrapment. Intraoperatively, 16 (76%) of these patients had the inferior rectus muscle incarcerated in the fracture, while 5 (24%) patients had incarceration of the orbital fat. Possibility of entrapment was not commented on in the radiology reports of the remaining 24 (53%) cases. Intraoperatively, 13 (54%) of these patients had the inferior rectus muscle incarcerated in the fracture, while 11 (46%) patients had incarceration of the orbital fat. It is vital to assess the possibility of entrapment, especially in young patients, in the setting of OFF as a delay in diagnosis may lead to persistent diplopia, disfigurement, or bradycardia. Most radiology reports did not mention the possibility of entrapment in this cohort. A key concept is that entrapment occurs when any orbital tissue (muscle or fat) is trapped in the fracture site.

For those patients without a discernable lid crease (Figure 16.1), the following measurements can provide a good incisional guideline: 7–9 mm above the mid-eyelid margin for men and 8–10 mm for women 6 mm above the medial eyelid margin at the level of the punctum 6–8 mm above the lateral eyelid margin at the level of the lateral canthus Lateral eyelid crease incision then swings upwards at the lateral canthus to end 15–18 mm from the lateral canthus at a 45° angle Open image in new window Figure 16.1 Artist’s sketch depicting incision guidelines for upper eyelid blepharoplasty. (A) Preoperative sketch of upper eyelid dermatochalasis. (B) Castrovierjo calipers are used to measure the eyelid. (C) Planned incision. (D) Skin excision closed with running suture.

Purpose: Pediatric idiopathic orbital inflammation (IOI) is a rare entity with little known about the clinical presentation and natural history. The authors report the demographics, clinical presentations, radiographic and histopathologic characteristics, and treatment outcome of 30 children with IOI. Method s: Retrospective chart review of 30 patients 18 years and younger diagnosed with IOI and statistical analysis using analysis of variance and Fisher’s exact test. This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of SUNY Downstate Medical Center. Results: There were 9 males (30%) and 21 females (70%) with pediatric IOI who presented at a median age of 11 years (range 2–18 years). Primary IOI was found in 19 patients (63%) and recurrent IOI in 11 patients (37%). Overall, 26 patients (87%) had unilateral IOI while 4 patients (13%) had bilateral disease at presentation. There were 12 patients (40%) with systemic constitutional signs. The most common ophthalmic findings included periorbital edema (n = 20, 67%) and blepharoptosis (n = 17, 57%). All patients had orbital radiography with common findings of dacryoadenitis (n = 12, 40%), orbital mass (n = 12, 40%), or myositis (n=10, 33%). The presence of a radiographic orbital mass was significantly related to the clinical presence of blepharoptosis (p = 0.03). The most common treatment was oral glucocorticoids in 24 patients (80%). Over mean follow up of 19 months (range 6–64 months), females were more likely to display recurrent disease (p = 0.01). Conclusions: Idiopathic orbital inflammation is an uncommon but important cause of acute orbital syndrome in children, manifesting as a bilateral condition in 13% and with constitutional symptoms in 40%. Posttreatment recurrence is found in 37% of cases.

Purpose: The aim of this article was to report the clinical presentation, radiography, culture results, treatment modalities, and outcomes of periocular abscesses associated with brow epilation. Methods: This was a retrospective case series including 26 patients referred for periocular abscess following brow epilation. Results: Twenty-six female patients with a median age of 20.5 (range, 12–73) years were referred for oculoplastic evaluation of periocular abscesses related to recent brow epilation. All patients were treated with incision and drainage along with systemic antibiotics. Culture results revealed 16 cases of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, 3 of methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus, and 7 cultures that showed no growth. All patients had resolution of their abscesses at 1-month follow-up visits without progression to orbital cellulitis. Conclusions: Periocular abscess formation after brow epilation has been previously described in only a single case report in the literature. The authors believe this entity is underreported given their current report describing 26 such cases. Given the high prevalence of cosmetic brow epilation in females, the authors believe a careful history regarding brow epilation in any patient presenting with a periocular abscess or preseptal cellulitis is essential to explore the possible cause of their infection. The majority of patients in the current study’s cohort had methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus-related abscesses, and treatment with antibiotics with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus coverage may be a prudent first line choice in such patients.

PURPOSE:To compare the exposure rate of wrapped hydroxyapatite versus unwrapped porous polyethylene orbital implants in enucleated patients.METHODS:Medical records of the patients who underwent primary placement of hydroxyapatite (Bio-Eye) or porous polyethylene (Medpor) orbital implants after enucleation between 2002 and 2005 in Farabi Eye Hospital were reviewed, and the occurrence of implant exposure during follow-up visits was recorded. The exclusion criteria were secondary implantation, evisceration, or follow up of less than 1 year unless the exposure had occurred in the year after surgery. In the hydroxyapatite group, the implants were wrapped either in Mersilene mesh (65%) or in donor sclera (35%). Wrapping was not performed for any patient in the porous polyethylene group.RESULTS:A total of 198 cases with hydroxyapatite and 53 cases with porous polyethylene implant were identified. The most common causes of enucleation in both groups were globe trauma and painful blind eye. Rate of exposure was significantly higher [odds ratio (OR) = 7.97, p < 0.001] in patients with porous polyethylene (34.0%) than in those with hydroxyapatite implant (6.1%). This association remained significant after adjustment for potential confounders. Mean time of exposure after surgery was significantly (p < 0.001) longer in patients with porous polyethylene implant. Kaplan-Meier plots depicted a significantly (p < 0.001) higher rate of exposure in patients with porous polyethylene implant during the follow-up time.CONCLUSION:Unwrapped porous polyethylene implants demonstrated a higher rate of exposure, and longer time interval to exposure, compared with wrapped hydroxyapatite implants.

To evaluate complications and risk factors associated with the placement of wrapped and unwrapped porous polyethylene (PP) spherical implants after evisceration, enucleation, or secondary implantation.A retrospective, interventional, noncomparative case series of consecutive cases of PP implant placement after anophthalmic socket surgery performed by three surgeons over a 5-year period. A PP spherical implant was placed in 133 patients, 61 women (2 bilaterally) and 72 men (1 bilaterally). There were 91 enucleations, 30 eviscerations, and 15 secondary implant placements. Sixty-six (48.5%) implants were wrapped prior to placement. Parameters evaluated included: age, sex, prior ocular surgery or radiation treatment, indications for surgery, procedure performed, size of PP sphere, material used to wrap the implant, and complications.A total of 17 of 136 (12.5%) cases had documented postoperative complications, with implant exposure being the most common. In 5 patients (3.7%), implant exposure developed: 1 after evisceration and 4 after primary enucleation. Three of the five exposures were small and resolved with either observation alone or in one case with surgical revision of the socket. In two cases, the exposures were large enough that removal of the implant was indicated, one after evisceration and the other after enucleation with placement of a wrapped PP sphere.Our series revealed no significant difference in exposure rate between wrapped and unwrapped PP sphere implants, nor was the exposure rate affected by whether an eye was eviscerated or enucleated.