RANGE OF MOTION IN OCULAR IMPLANTS FOLLOWING ENUCLEATION: HYDROXYAPATITE VS POROUS POLYETHYLENE (MEDPOR)

Q: How can I download an article?

To download an article from SID, first log in to the site, search for the article title, and click on the 'Download Article' option.

Q: How can I download an ISI article?

To download an ISI article on SID, enter the keyword or article title in the search bar, view the relevant results, click on the desired article, and select the 'Download Article' option.

Q: How can I access the SID database?

To access the SID database, visit SID.ir, create an account, and log in to access scientific resources.

Q: Is downloading articles from SID free?

Some articles on SID are available for free, while others require payment. Details are specified on the article's page.

SABER MOGHADAM ALI AKBAR; SAZANDEH SH.

مرکز اطلاعات علمی Scientific Information Database (SID) - Trusted Source for Research and Academic Resources

Journal Paper

Paper Information

Journal: BINA Year:2006 | Volume:12 | Issue:1 (46) Page(s): 76-80

Download Full-Text

Persian Verion

View:

699

Download:

Cites:

Information Journal Paper

Title

RANGE OF MOTION IN OCULAR IMPLANTS FOLLOWING ENUCLEATION: HYDROXYAPATITE VS POROUS POLYETHYLENE (MEDPOR)

Author(s)

SABER MOGHADAM ALI AKBAR | SAZANDEH SH. | Issue Writer Certificate

Keywords

Not Registered.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the range of motion of hydroxyapatite (HA)and porous polyethylene (Medpor) ocular implants in enucleated eyes.Methods: This comparative study was performed on records of 34 patients who underwent Unilateral nucleation and implantation of hydroxyapatite (13 cases) or Medpor (21 cases). The two groups were compared regarding age, gender, cause of enucleation, laterality, and movement.Results: Patients were male in 55.9%. Mean age of patients was 29.7 year (1-61 years). The most common cause of enucleation was trauma (55.9%) and the most common complication was mucopurulent discharge (14.7%).There was no case of extrusion, migration or exposure. Moderate to good motility was achieved in 89.3% of patients in the Medpor group and 86.6% in the HA group. There was no statistically difference between the two group regarding upward movement (P=0.68), downward movement (P=0.62), adduction (P=0.17) and abduction (P=0.65).Conclusion: Medpor and hydroxyapatite ocular implants are comparable regarding range of motion.

Cites

No record.

References

No record.

Cite

APA: Copy

SABER MOGHADAM, ALI AKBAR, & SAZANDEH, SH.. (2006). RANGE OF MOTION IN OCULAR IMPLANTS FOLLOWING ENUCLEATION: HYDROXYAPATITE VS POROUS POLYETHYLENE (MEDPOR). BINA, 12(1 (46)), 76-80. SID. https://sid.ir/paper/42615/en

Vancouver: Copy

SABER MOGHADAM ALI AKBAR, SAZANDEH SH.. RANGE OF MOTION IN OCULAR IMPLANTS FOLLOWING ENUCLEATION: HYDROXYAPATITE VS POROUS POLYETHYLENE (MEDPOR). BINA[Internet]. 2006;12(1 (46)):76-80. Available from: https://sid.ir/paper/42615/en

IEEE: Copy

ALI AKBAR SABER MOGHADAM, and SH. SAZANDEH, “RANGE OF MOTION IN OCULAR IMPLANTS FOLLOWING ENUCLEATION: HYDROXYAPATITE VS POROUS POLYETHYLENE (MEDPOR),” BINA, vol. 12, no. 1 (46), pp. 76–80, 2006, [Online]. Available: https://sid.ir/paper/42615/en

Related Journal Papers