Sally Moore

Orbital Fat Removal: Decompression for Graves Orbitopathy

BACKGROUND Orbital decompression has been used to describe surgical procedures that remove some portion of the orbital walls to reduce pressure on the orbital contents. Substantial morbidity associated with these procedures includes infraorbital anesthesia, worsened extraocular motility, globe displacement, and blindness. The authors believe that orbital contents also may be decompressed by removing orbital fat. METHODS Eighty-one patients with nonactive Graves orbitopathy were selected for orbital fat decompression based on the presence of proptosis and associated signs and symptoms to avoid bone removal. Soft-tissue analysis by computed tomography (CT) scan showed distended pockets of fat extending into the intraconal space, which were removed through medial-upper and lateral-lower anterior orbitotomies. Decompression with bone removal was reserved for those few patients with compressive optic neuropathy unresponsive to medical treatment and those patients with residual deforming exophthalmos after fat removal. RESULTS One hundred fifty-eight fat decompressions were performed on 81 patients over 9 years. The authors measured an average reduction in proptosis of 1.8 mm (range, 0-6.0 mm). The greatest average reduction in proptosis (3.3 mm) was produced in patients with preoperative Hertel measurements of greater than 25.0 mm. Morbidity was limited to temporary motility impairment of the inferior oblique in two patients. CONCLUSION The concept of orbital decompression can include removal of orbital fat to reduce proptosis, eliminate symptoms, and improve appearance with far less morbidity than when bone decompression is used as the primary decompressive procedure.

Strabismus in the Aphakic Patient

Fifty patients with aphakia and strabismus were studied. The chief complaint was diplopia following full optical correction. Prism therapy was recommended if the diplopia persisted after 3 to 4 months. When prism therapy was ineffective or impractical, surgery was recommended. The result of therapy was not influenced by the cause of the cataract treatment was considered successful in approximately 80% of patients. Patients who had convergence insufficiency did well with prism therapy alone. Half of the patients who had divergence excess needed extraocular-muscle surgery. One fourth of the patients had esotropia, nearly half associated with lateral rectus palsy. While prism therapy resulted in fusion, a reduction in prism power was not tolerated in this group. For this reason, surgery was suggested for all patients who had esotropia.