Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Dog eye implant movement after enucleation or evisceration surgery
By Yi, Na Young et al.·Published in Veterinary ophthalmology·2009·Department of Clinical Sciences, United States·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Comparison of orbital prosthesis motility following enucleation or evisceration with sclerotomy with or without a motility coupling post in dogs.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of mixed-breed dogs that had either their eye removed (enucleation) or the contents of the eye removed (evisceration) were evaluated to see how well their new artificial eyes moved afterward. The dogs that had evisceration with a special post (motility coupling post) showed better movement of their prosthetic eyes compared to those that had enucleation. All dogs recovered well without any complications, and the study suggests that using this post can improve how natural the artificial eye looks and moves.
People also search for: dog eye removal recovery · artificial eye movement in dogs · evisceration vs enucleation in dogs
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate motility of silicone orbital implants and corneoscleral prostheses, with and without use of a motility coupling post (MCP) in dogs. ANIMALS STUDIED: Eighteen mixed-breed dogs. PROCEDURES: The motility of an orbital silicone implant and corneoscleral prosthesis after enucleation (n = 6), evisceration (n = 6), or use of a MCP with evisceration (n = 6) in dogs were compared. One eye from each dog had surgery whereas the opposite eye was used as a control. Clinical evaluations were performed three times a week. Histopathology of the orbital tissues was performed 8 and 12 weeks after surgery. RESULTS: Implant motility in dogs with evisceration (vertical movement [VM] 8.04 +/- 2.13; horizontal movement [HM] 11 +/- 3.05) and evisceration with MCP (VM 9.61 +/- 1.59); HM was significantly greater than the enucleation group (VM 0.51 +/- 0.5; HM 1.22 +/- 0.68) (P < 0.01). Prosthetic motility in dogs with evisceration with MCP was significantly greater than in dogs with evisceration; dogs with evisceration had significantly greater motility than dogs with enucleation (P < 0.01). No postoperative complications were observed in any of the groups. No significant abnormalities were noted on histopathology. CONCLUSIONS: MCP placement in silicone orbital implants significantly enhanced the prosthetic motility in dogs. This study supports the use of MCP in silicone orbital implants to enhance corneoscleral prosthesis motility and cosmetics in dogs.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19392873/