Hubbry Logo
Evisceration (ophthalmology)Evisceration (ophthalmology)Main
Open search
Evisceration (ophthalmology)
Community hub
Evisceration (ophthalmology)
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Evisceration (ophthalmology)
Evisceration (ophthalmology)
Evisceration (ophthalmology)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Ocular evisceration is the removal of the eye's contents, leaving the scleral shell and extraocular muscles intact.[1][2] The procedure is usually performed to reduce pain, improve cosmetic appearance in a blind eye, treat cases of endophthalmitis unresponsive to antibiotics, or in the case of ocular trauma.[1][2] An ocular prosthetic can be later fitted over the eviscerated eye in order to improve cosmetic appearance.[3]

Background

Evisceration is a surgical procedure that involves the removal the eye's contents while leaving the white part of the eye (the scleral shell) and extraocular muscles in place.[4] Evisceration differs from enucleation, as enucleation involves the removal of the scleral shell as well. Evisceration was first described by Bear in 1817 as an experimental treatment for expulsive hemorrhage, and with the advent of general anesthesia in the 1840’s the procedure was refined and ocular implants were developed.[5]

Indications

Evisceration involves disrupting the integrity of the globe, and therefore is not typically used in patients with intraocular cancers as it may risk spreading cancerous cells to other parts of the body.[6] The most common indications for evisceration include a blind painful eye, trauma, or infection.[2][7][8]

Pre-operative evaluation

Prior to surgery, the eye must be carefully examined by an ophthalmologist to check for ocular cancer or other conditions that may complicate the procedure. If the back of the eye cannot be visualized, then a CT scan should be performed.[7] If neither clinical evaluation nor imaging can rule out cancer, then enucleation may be considered as an alternative to prevent the possibility of malignant spread.[9]

Surgical technique

The surgery is performed in the operating room typically under general anesthesia, however it can also be conducted using local anesthesia with sedation. Procedure time is typically one to two hours.

Prior to surgery, the correct eye must be marked and verified. The patient is anesthetized, the field is sterilized, then draped in a sterile manner.[10] An eyelid speculum is placed to keep the eyelids open during the surgery. The procedure begins with a 360° periotomy followed by a stab incision in the sclera.[10][11] The incision is then expanded around the limbus circumferentially and the orbital contents are removed using an evisceration spoon. The optic disc is then cauterized and the scleral shell is cleaned.[10] A spherical implant is then inserted into the scleral shell and the shell is sutured together, encasing the implant.[12] The intraocular contents may be sent for pathological examination once removed.[10]

Post-operation

After the surgery, strenuous physical activity should be avoided until cleared by a physician.[13] Contaminated bodies of water, such as pools, lakes, and the ocean should be avoided.[7] The surgeon will typically provide instructions on bathing, as tap water may also be contaminated.

Post-operative pain may be controlled with either prescription medications or over the counter pain relievers. Some patients may be given steroids or antibiotics depending on the indication for the surgery and surgeon preference.[10]

Prostheses

Once the operating surgeon determines that the orbit has healed adequately, an ocularist can custom fit a prosthetic eye to improve cosmetic appearance. This will typically occur 6-8 weeks post-op. With proper care, prosthetic eyes can last decades.[10]

Possible complications

As with any surgery, evisceration may be complicated by bleeding, swelling, infection, and scarring.[14] Although these complications are rare, a doctor should be consulted regarding any pre-existing conditions or current medications that may increase the chance of surgical complications.[15] There are also risks with general anesthesia, especially in patients with certain pre-existing health conditions. In addition, patients may experience eyelid droopiness and complications related to the ocular implant.[14] Eyelid droopiness may require additional surgery for correction.[16]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Evisceration (ophthalmology)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Evisceration is a surgical procedure in that involves the removal of the eye's intraocular contents while preserving the scleral shell, extraocular muscle attachments, and surrounding orbital structures, typically followed by the placement of an orbital to maintain and facilitate prosthetic fitting. This technique is primarily performed to alleviate pain and eliminate infection in blind or severely damaged eyes, offering a cosmetic alternative to complete eye removal. Epidemiologically, it is more prevalent in males and adults over 60 in regions with high trauma rates, with trauma and accounting for approximately 37% each of cases based on analyses from 2015-2024. The procedure is indicated for conditions such as , penetrating ocular trauma, painful blind eyes, and , but is contraindicated in cases of suspected intraocular due to the risk of disseminating tumor cells. Common etiologies include severe infections, trauma-related complications, and chronic leading to irreversible vision loss. Preoperative evaluation includes and if malignancy is suspected to ensure safety. Performed under general or as an outpatient procedure lasting 1-2 hours, evisceration involves excision of the , evacuation of intraocular contents, and placement of a spherical implant (typically 18-20 mm in diameter), often wrapped in donor . The wound is closed in layers, with a conformer placed temporarily until a custom is fitted after 4-6 weeks of healing. Compared to enucleation, which removes the entire , evisceration provides advantages including reduced operative time, less bleeding, superior of the prosthetic eye (with mean horizontal excursion up to 10 mm), and improved cosmetic outcomes due to preserved scleral support. Potential complications include , orbital hemorrhage, implant exposure or extrusion (occurring in 5-10% of cases), socket contracture, and rare sympathetic ophthalmia (with risk comparable to enucleation despite historical concerns of increased dissemination), necessitating careful postoperative monitoring and follow-up. Recovery involves avoiding strenuous activity for 2-4 weeks, with long-term care focused on prosthetic maintenance to prevent socket issues.

Overview

Definition

Evisceration in is a surgical procedure involving the removal of the intraocular contents, including the vitreous humor, , crystalline lens, and uveal tract, while preserving the scleral shell, , and to maintain orbital volume and enable prosthetic . This technique allows for the placement of an orbital implant within the preserved , supporting cosmetic rehabilitation and functional outcomes superior to more radical eye removals. Anatomically, the remains intact as a posterior shell, providing structural integrity for the implant, while the retain their attachments to facilitate movement of the future . The is preserved to cover the surgical site, promoting healing and reducing exposure risks. The may be preserved in certain techniques to allow for a larger implant size or removed via a limbal incision to access the intraocular contents, depending on the specific surgical approach. The term "evisceration" derives from the Latin eviscerare, meaning "to disembowel" or remove internal organs, adapted in medical contexts to describe the extraction of ocular viscera while sparing the outer shell. Unlike enucleation, which involves complete excision of the globe including the , evisceration prioritizes preservation of the scleral envelope for better cosmetic and results.

Epidemiology

Evisceration procedures represent a small fraction of overall ophthalmologic interventions, with reported rates varying by region and healthcare setting. In large tertiary care networks in developing countries such as India, evisceration accounts for approximately 0.84% of all ophthalmic surgeries and 7.4% of oculoplastic procedures, based on a multicentre cohort of over 2,000 cases. Globally, the incidence of destructive eye surgeries like evisceration and enucleation combined is estimated at 1.5 to 4.3 per 100,000 population in Western countries, though specific data for evisceration alone are limited; rates are notably higher in trauma-prone or low-resource regions, where evisceration constitutes 20-30% of eye removals due to infections and injuries. For instance, in parts of Latin America and the Middle East, trauma-related eviscerations can exceed 50% of cases in high-violence areas. Demographically, evisceration is more prevalent among males, with male-to-female ratios ranging from 2:1 to nearly 8:1 across studies, particularly in trauma cases. Patients are typically in the 20-50 age range, with mean ages reported between 35 and 40 years in developing regions; for example, a Turkish tertiary analysis of 216 cases from 2010-2021 found 71% males with a mean age of 34.9 years. Leading causes include ocular trauma (40-50% of cases), (20-37%), and painful blind eyes or (20-42%), with trauma dominating in younger males and infections more common in older or female patients. In a 10-year study from eastern Türkiye involving 135 patients, trauma and each accounted for 37%, while absolute blind eyes made up 12.6%. These patterns reflect higher exposure to occupational or accidental injuries in males and delayed care leading to infections in resource-limited settings. From 2015 to 2025, there has been a marked shift toward evisceration over enucleation in tertiary centers, with evisceration now comprising 50-70% of eye removal procedures in many institutions due to its technical simplicity, better cosmetic outcomes, and lower complication rates. A 10-year review (2015-2024) at a major center reported 132 eviscerations versus 129 enucleations, indicating near parity but with evisceration gaining favor. This trend is especially pronounced in low-resource settings, where evisceration's cost-effectiveness and reduced surgical time contribute to its increased adoption for trauma and cases. Studies from 2018 onward highlight a steady rise in evisceration incidence, driven by evolving surgical preferences and evidence supporting its safety.

Indications and Contraindications

Indications

Evisceration is primarily indicated for eyes with no visual potential that cause significant patient discomfort or pose risks of complications. A blind painful eye, often due to conditions such as absolute glaucoma or , represents one of the most common scenarios, where the procedure alleviates while preserving the scleral shell for better cosmetic outcomes compared to enucleation. Severe ocular trauma resulting in irreversible damage, such as penetrating injuries with no light perception, also warrants evisceration when salvage is impossible, particularly to manage associated pain or infection risks. In cases of or panophthalmitis, especially postoperative or traumatic, evisceration is recommended to eradicate the infection source and prevent further orbital spread. Secondary indications include the cosmetic removal of disfigured blind eyes, where the procedure improves aesthetic appearance and patient without functional vision recovery. Additionally, in select cases, evisceration may be performed to reduce the risk of , though enucleation is sometimes preferred for higher-risk injuries. Patient selection for evisceration requires confirmation that no visual salvage is possible through comprehensive clinical examination and imaging, such as B-scan ultrasonography or computed tomography to assess the posterior pole. Intraocular must be excluded preoperatively, as its presence contraindicates the procedure due to the risk of tumor dissemination.

Contraindications

The primary absolute contraindication for evisceration is the presence of suspected or confirmed intraocular malignancy, such as , as the procedure risks disseminating tumor cells beyond the , potentially leading to extraocular spread and worsened prognosis. In such cases, enucleation is the preferred alternative to ensure complete removal of the affected for histopathological examination and to minimize recurrence risk. Relative contraindications include conditions that increase procedural risks or compromise outcomes, such as severe or microphthalmos, where the shrunken or inadequate scleral shell hinders implant placement and cosmetic rehabilitation. Additionally, evisceration is relatively contraindicated in eyes with viable indicating potential for visual salvage, as the procedure is reserved for irreversibly blind globes to avoid unnecessary loss of function. For these relative scenarios, alternatives include enucleation when feasible or non-surgical approaches such as medical management of or supportive care for painful blind eyes.

Surgical Techniques

Preoperative Preparation

Preoperative preparation for evisceration surgery begins with a thorough clinical to confirm the procedure's appropriateness and ensure . A comprehensive ophthalmic examination, including a dilated fundus , is essential to assess the extent of ocular and rule out intraocular , which is a for evisceration. If visualization of the posterior pole is obscured, imaging such as B-scan ultrasonography or computed tomography (CT) is performed to evaluate intraocular contents and exclude tumors. Systemic health review is also critical, focusing on comorbidities that may increase bleeding risks, such as coagulopathies or use, and overall fitness for to minimize perioperative complications. Informed consent is obtained after detailed discussion of the procedure, its indications (such as severe pain or in a blind eye), potential risks including , , and implant exposure, benefits like improved and comfort, and alternatives such as enucleation. Patients are counseled on the psychological impact of eye loss, including effects on and , with referral for psychological support recommended to address emotional distress and facilitate adjustment. Preparatory measures include planning , typically general anesthesia for most cases or with intravenous for suitable patients, with retrobulbar blocks considered for additional control and . Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis, such as intravenous or vancomycin for high-risk patients, is administered to reduce risk, though routine postoperative oral antibiotics may not be necessary in clean, elective procedures. The surgical site is prepared with standard solutions, and the correct eye is marked to confirm , ensuring sterile conditions for the .

Intraoperative Procedure

The intraoperative procedure for evisceration begins with the administration of , typically general anesthesia or with intravenous , depending on the patient's condition and surgeon preference. Retrobulbar or peribulbar blocks may be used to supplement , providing analgesia and akinesia while minimizing orbital volume changes. A eyelid speculum is inserted to expose the , followed by a 360-degree conjunctival peritomy at the limbus using Westcott , with subconjunctival injection of epinephrine to aid and retraction. The core steps involve creating access to the intraocular contents while preserving the scleral shell and . In the anterior approach, the is often removed first via a full-thickness limbal incision with an #11 , completed circumferentially with to excise the corneal button; alternatively, the may be preserved in select cases to maintain scleral integrity. A 360-degree scleral incision is then made 2-3 mm posterior to the limbus, or two to four radial scleral relaxing incisions are performed to open the shell. The intraocular contents, including the , lens, vitreous, and , are eviscerated using a curved or to scoop out the material, with thorough scrubbing to ensure complete removal of uveal remnants and prevent . is achieved by applying bipolar or wet-field cautery to any vessels within the scleral cavity. The inner scleral surface is irrigated with saline after optional application of 70% alcohol to denature residual proteins and reduce . Following , a spherical orbital implant, typically 18-22 mm in diameter and often wrapped in donor , synthetic , or other material for integration, is placed into the eviscerated scleral shell to restore orbital . The implant is positioned without direct attachment to the , which remain affixed to the to preserve . Closure proceeds in layers to restore the socket architecture. The is closed with interrupted or mattress 5-0 or 6-0 absorbable sutures (e.g., ) in a fashion, overlapping the edges for secure . is reapproximated with a purse-string 4-0 suture, followed by conjunctival closure using a running 6-0 or 7-0 suture. A conformer is placed to protect the socket and maintain fornix depth. The procedure typically lasts 60 to 120 minutes (1-2 hours), allowing for efficient completion under standard operating conditions. Variations in technique include the posterior approach, where a smaller scleral window is created over the optic nerve to access contents without corneal removal, or the use of radial relaxing incisions to facilitate evisceration in scarred globes. Throughout all variations, the extraocular muscles remain attached to the sclera, preserving orbital motility for subsequent prosthetic fitting.

Orbital Implants and Prosthetics

Types of Implants

Orbital implants are essential in evisceration surgery to restore orbital volume, support prosthetic motility, and achieve cosmetic symmetry. These implants are typically spherical and placed within the eviscerated scleral shell or . Common materials include non-porous options such as acrylic (polymethylmethacrylate, PMMA) and , which are inert and do not promote tissue ingrowth. Non-porous implants like acrylic are favored for their low cost and straightforward surgical placement, as they can often be placed without wrapping (though wrapping may be used to reduce exposure). However, they lack fibrovascular integration, which may increase migration risk, though exposure rates are low (e.g., 2.9% in one review). implants share similar properties, offering flexibility but potentially less stability in the socket. Porous implants, including hydroxyapatite (derived from coral or synthetic) and porous polyethylene (e.g., Medpor), enable host tissue ingrowth, which enhances implant stability and prosthetic motility. These materials promote vascularization for better integration, with exposure rates of 6.6% across large cohorts (versus 2.9% for nonporous in the same review). Despite these benefits, porous implants are more expensive and may benefit from wrapping in sclera or synthetic materials to ease handling and minimize exposure risk during primary placement. Implants can be placed primarily during the evisceration procedure or secondarily in a delayed fashion, particularly in cases of active to minimize complications. Primary placement is common and associated with low extrusion rates, around 12% or less in endophthalmitis scenarios. Sizing is determined by preoperative orbital volume assessment, with diameters of 18-22 mm typical for adults to avoid superior sulcus . A 2025 systematic review concluded no consistent clinical superiority of porous over nonporous orbital implants.
Implant TypeMaterial ExamplesKey AdvantagesKey Disadvantages
Non-porousAcrylic (PMMA), Low cost; easy placement (often without wrapping)Limited tissue integration; potential migration
Porous, Porous Fibrovascular ingrowth for stability and ; lower migrationHigher cost; exposure risk (e.g., avg. 6.6%, vs. 2.9% for nonporous)

Prosthetic Fitting

Prosthetic fitting typically occurs 4 to 8 weeks after evisceration surgery, once the orbital socket has sufficiently healed and has subsided, allowing for optimal customization. Patients are referred to a certified ocularist, a specialist trained in fabricating and fitting artificial eyes, who evaluates the socket's contours, volume, and tissue health to ensure proper fit and alignment. The fitting process begins with impression molding, where the ocularist uses a biocompatible alginate material injected into the socket to capture its precise shape, creating a negative mold that guides the fabrication of a custom acrylic . This is followed by sculpting the to match the socket's depth and fornices, ensuring comfort and stability without pressure on . The ocularist then custom-paints the iris and to closely resemble the contralateral eye, incorporating details like color, veining, and size for a natural appearance. For enhanced , particularly with porous implants such as , a pegging system may be integrated 6 months or more post-surgery; this involves drilling a small hole in and attaching a motility peg that couples with a socket in the , transmitting extraocular muscle movements more effectively. Maintenance of the is essential for preventing infections and preserving socket health. Daily involves removing the prosthesis (if tolerated), rinsing it under lukewarm water with mild, non-abrasive soap and a soft cloth, then soaking it briefly in saline solution; the socket should be gently cleaned with saline or to remove debris. Patients should avoid harsh chemicals, heat, or abrasive materials, and wear the prosthesis continuously during waking hours to maintain socket and . Annual or biannual visits to the ocularist are recommended for professional , adjustments due to age-related socket atrophy or tissue changes, and monitoring for issues like discharge or poor fit. Prostheses generally require replacement every 3 to 5 years, or sooner if damaged, discolored, or ill-fitting, to sustain cosmetic and functional outcomes.

Postoperative Management

Recovery Protocol

Following evisceration surgery, patients are often discharged the same day but may experience a short stay of 1 to 2 days to monitor initial recovery and manage any immediate postoperative effects, depending on and individual factors. is generally mild and peaks within the first 48 hours, controlled with oral analgesics such as acetaminophen or prescribed pain relievers, while over-the-counter options suffice for most cases. To minimize swelling, ice compresses wrapped in a cloth are applied intermittently for the first few days, and head elevation—using extra pillows during sleep—is recommended to reduce orbital pressure and discomfort. Activity restrictions are essential during the initial recovery phase to promote and prevent strain on the surgical site. Patients should avoid bending at the waist, heavy lifting, strenuous exercise, and swimming for at least 2 weeks, with some guidelines extending these precautions to 4 weeks depending on individual . Topical medications, including drops or ointment to prevent and drops to reduce , are prescribed and applied several times daily for 1 to 4 weeks. Oral antibiotics may also be given for the first week in higher-risk cases. Close monitoring is crucial in the first 7 to 10 days to detect early signs of , such as increased redness, swelling, discharge, fever, or excessive , which require prompt medical attention to avoid complications. Patients are advised to keep the area clean, avoid rubbing the socket, and attend a follow-up visit around 1 week postoperatively for dressing removal and assessment.

Follow-up Care

Follow-up care after ocular evisceration focuses on ensuring socket stability, optimal prosthetic function, and early detection of complications through regular monitoring. Initial visits typically occur at 1 week and 3-4 weeks postoperatively to assess and conformer placement, with subsequent evaluations every 6-12 months thereafter, including annual comprehensive assessments by the and ocularist. These appointments allow for ongoing beyond the immediate recovery phase, where patients may still observe restrictions on strenuous activities. During follow-up evaluations, clinicians examine socket health for signs of , , discharge, or implant exposure, while assessing to ensure synchronous movement between the and the fellow eye. Prosthetic fit is evaluated for proper centering, symmetry, border integrity, and absence of scratches or shine discrepancies, with adjustments made as needed to prevent socket . If or migration is suspected, particularly in cases of persistent pain or asymmetry, imaging such as CT or MRI is recommended to guide further management. Patient education plays a central role in long-term success, emphasizing daily practices to maintain socket and prosthetic longevity. Individuals are instructed to remove and clean the prosthesis using a moist and cool water, followed by application of a lubricating ointment to the socket, avoiding harsh chemicals or excessive rubbing. They should monitor for signs of socket contraction, such as reduced fornix depth, , or decreasing prosthetic stability, and report these promptly to prevent progression to surgical revision. Additionally, referral to support groups or counseling services is advised to address psychological adjustment, providing peer connections for those adapting to vision loss and cosmetic changes.

Complications and Outcomes

Potential Complications

Evisceration surgery in is associated with a range of potential intraoperative, early, and late complications, though overall rates remain relatively low, typically ranging from 10-30% based on surgical technique and patient factors. Intraoperative and early complications primarily involve hemorrhage and formation, which may require intervention if significant. , including preseptal or , can occur postoperatively, often within the first few weeks and linked to bacterial contamination during surgery. Preoperative is a for implant extrusion. Orbital implant-related issues occur in approximately 10% of cases and are managed aggressively. Late complications typically emerge months after surgery and include implant exposure or in 3-7% of cases, with rates around 3.5% reported in series using porous implants, which facilitate fibrovascular ingrowth and may lower risks compared to non-porous alternatives. Socket contracture, characterized by fornix shortening and reduced orbital volume, is a known issue that may necessitate reconstructive procedures such as grafting. Ptosis of the upper is another late complication, often related to levator disinsertion or scarring. Management of these complications focuses on prevention through meticulous sterile technique and appropriate implant selection, with antibiotics administered for infections and revision required for extrusion in most instances. A 2025 analysis reported an overall complication rate of 15.6% for evisceration, lower than enucleation (35.7%), underscoring the procedure's favorable safety profile in optimized settings.

Prognosis and Cosmetic Results

Evisceration typically yields high success rates in socket rehabilitation, with 90-95% of patients achieving satisfactory outcomes through proper implant placement and prosthetic fitting. Studies emphasize the procedure's reliability for restoring orbital volume and function. Cosmetic results are generally favorable, as the preservation of the scleral shell and allows for a natural prosthetic appearance and enhanced compared to enucleation. With pegged implants, prosthetic reaches approximately 70% of normal. Patient satisfaction is high, particularly regarding relief, with surveys indicating around 80% reporting positive psychological benefits and overall contentment with the procedure's outcomes. Complete resolution occurs in nearly all cases, often within 3 months, enhancing . Key factors influencing include early prosthetic fitting and patient compliance with follow-up care, which support long-term volume stability; the majority of patients maintain adequate orbital volume without revision at 5 years. While complications can occasionally impact results, adherence to postoperative protocols minimizes such risks.

Comparison with Other Procedures

Versus Enucleation

Evisceration and enucleation are both surgical procedures for removing a non-functional eye, but they differ fundamentally in technique and anatomical preservation. In evisceration, only the intraocular contents are excised while the scleral shell and extraocular muscle insertions remain intact, allowing direct attachment of an orbital implant to the preserved tissues. In contrast, enucleation involves complete removal of the globe, including the sclera, with subsequent reattachment of the extraocular muscles to the implant or surrounding tissues, which can disrupt orbital anatomy more extensively. These differences lead to distinct outcomes in motility and cosmesis, with evisceration generally providing superior prosthetic movement due to unaltered muscle positions. Evisceration offers several advantages over enucleation, particularly in terms of functional and aesthetic results. Preserved muscle attachments enable better motility, with studies reporting higher motility scores in eviscerated sockets (mean 5.58 ± 2.08) compared to enucleated ones (mean 4.35 ± 1.69), and surveys indicating that 82% of ocularists view evisceration as superior for and overall . Additionally, evisceration is technically simpler, with shorter operative times (approximately 47 minutes versus longer for enucleation) and less tissue disruption, potentially reducing postoperative pain and improving cosmetic outcomes through more natural socket volume maintenance. Implant rates are generally low and comparable between the procedures, ranging from 3-4% in large series, though some reports note slightly higher rates with evisceration in specific contexts like immediate implantation. However, evisceration carries a potential disadvantage in contaminated or infected cases, where the retained may increase the risk of intraocular spread, making enucleation preferable to ensure complete . The choice between evisceration and enucleation depends on the underlying and need for histopathological examination. Evisceration is typically selected for non-malignant conditions, such as blind painful eyes from trauma or end-stage , where preservation of and is prioritized without suspicion of intraocular . Enucleation is favored for malignancies like , as it allows intact globe submission for and reduces the risk of residual tumor cells, which cannot be fully assessed with evisceration specimens. Both procedures carry a similarly low risk of (less than 0.5% in modern series), with no evidence that enucleation provides superior protection.

Versus Exenteration

Evisceration and exenteration represent distinct surgical approaches in , differing fundamentally in scope and anatomical preservation. Evisceration involves the removal of the intraocular contents—such as the vitreous, , and uveal structures—while leaving the , , and orbital framework intact, thereby confining the procedure to the itself. In contrast, exenteration is a far more radical intervention that excises the entire orbital contents, including the , , orbital fat, nerves, and often the eyelids, to address extending beyond the eye. The primary indications for exenteration center on advanced orbital malignancies with invasive extension, such as or carcinoma, where achieving tumor-free margins necessitates complete orbital clearance to prevent recurrence or . It is also reserved for life-threatening orbital infections, like invasive or , that threaten systemic spread. Evisceration, by preserving the orbital structures, provides significant advantages in these scenarios, including superior cosmetic rehabilitation through retained scleral support for implants and enhanced prosthetic motility due to intact , avoiding the severe associated with exenteration. There is limited overlap in indications, particularly in severe infectious cases like panophthalmitis, where evisceration is typically the initial choice for rapid control of intraocular suppuration while minimizing tissue disruption. However, if the infection fails to resolve and progresses to extensive orbital involvement, as seen in rare cases of tuberculous or fungal panophthalmitis, exenteration may become necessary to eradicate the source and prevent further complications.

History and Developments

Early History

Evisceration in was first described by James Beer in 1817 as a surgical approach to manage painful blind eyes resulting from expulsive hemorrhage during procedures. This initial proposal addressed the need to remove intraocular contents while preserving the scleral shell to maintain some structural integrity and cosmetic appearance. Early applications in 19th-century focused on cases of severe ocular trauma, where the procedure offered a less radical alternative to complete eye removal for patients with irreparable injuries. The rudimentary techniques of the era involved straightforward evisceration of the uveal contents and vitreous without incorporation of implants, relying solely on the natural scleral remnant to support a future . These methods were constrained by the lack of reliable , as surgeries prior to the introduction of in the 1840s were performed under primitive , often limiting the procedure to desperate cases and increasing operative risks. By the mid-19th century, evisceration began to gain limited adoption for managing severe intraocular infections, such as panophthalmitis, particularly after J.F. reported his successful use of the technique in 1874 for infected eyes, highlighting its potential to control suppuration while avoiding full enucleation. Nonetheless, the procedure was largely overshadowed by enucleation until the late 1800s, due to prevailing fears of transmission through retained uveal tissue, which deterred widespread clinical embrace.

Modern Advancements

In the late , significant advancements in orbital materials revolutionized evisceration outcomes by improving tissue integration and prosthetic motility. The introduction of coralline implants in 1985 marked a key milestone, as these porous spheres, derived from reef-building , allowed for fibrovascular ingrowth, reducing implant migration and enhancing long-term stability compared to earlier non-porous options. Building on this, the 1990s saw the development of synthetic porous implants, such as Medpor, which offered similar vascularization benefits while being more malleable, cost-effective, and easier to customize during , further promoting their widespread adoption in evisceration procedures. Recent studies from 2014 to 2024 at tertiary centers show evisceration comprising approximately 50-62% of eye removal procedures, with a slight preference over enucleation for its superior and cosmetic results, particularly in non-malignant indications like or trauma. Concurrently, refined perioperative protocols, including for 10-18 days post-surgery, have contributed to lower extrusion rates, reported as low as 0-7% in select series of primary eviscerations with porous implants, minimizing risks and improving overall success. As of 2025, studies continue to show evisceration rates around 50% in tertiary centers, with decreasing traumatic indications and emphasis on complication minimization. Looking ahead, future directions emphasize bioengineered implants incorporating bioactive coatings or integration to further enhance vascularization and reduce extrusion, as explored in ongoing biomaterials research. Minimally invasive evisceration approaches, such as radiofrequency-assisted scleral opening, are gaining traction to shorten operative times and preserve more scleral integrity. Additionally, research is shifting toward patient-reported outcomes, with studies prioritizing metrics like quality-of-life assessments and prosthetic satisfaction to guide personalized care in anophthalmic reconstruction.

References

  1. https://eyewiki.org/Evisceration
  2. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/25029-evisceration
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12112041/
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3277021/
  5. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15670071/
  6. https://eyewiki.aao.org/Evisceration
  7. https://www.aao.org/eye-health/treatments/eye-removal-surgery-enucleation-evisceration
  8. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aos.12123
  9. https://www.etymonline.com/word/eviscerate
  10. https://www.eyenews.uk.com/reviews/journal-reviews/post/evisceration-in-india-demographic-and-clinical-trends-from-a-large-multicentre-cohort-study
  11. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-13975-4
  12. https://journals.lww.com/pajo/fulltext/2023/12150/characterization_of_evisceration_and_enucleation.4.aspx
  13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11372399/
  14. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/14/10/3601
  15. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41005376/
  16. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30851761/
  17. https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2417572
  18. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6150595/
  19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4137206/
  20. https://www.aao.org/education/image/enucleation-evisceration
  21. https://www.magonlinelibrary.com/doi/10.12968/ijop.2011.2.3.124
  22. https://eyewiki.org/Anesthesia_for_Oculoplastic_Surgery
  23. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23645357/
  24. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3277021/
  25. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3822222/
  26. https://www.aao.org/education/current-insight/choice-of-enucleation-implant
  27. https://www.aaojournal.org/article/S0161-6420(18)30564-5/fulltext
  28. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0008418225003813
  29. https://ocularist.org/resources_surgical_procedures.asp
  30. https://aravind.org/diseases/prosthetics-eye/
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5308076/
  32. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/prosthetic-eye-ocular-prosthesis
  33. https://mft.nhs.uk/app/uploads/sites/2/2019/09/REH-019.pdf
  34. https://www.rveeh.ie/app/uploads/2017/04/evisceration_patient_information_leaflet.pdf
  35. https://patient.uwhealth.org/healthfacts/7677
  36. https://www.drugs.com/cg/eye-removal-surgery-discharge-care.html
  37. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK606099/
  38. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7005835/
  39. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12092142/
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8347078/
  41. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7602916/
  42. https://bjo.bmj.com/content/96/4/494
  43. https://ijooo.org/archive/volume/9/issue/3/article/7111
  44. https://journals.lww.com/djop/fulltext/2025/01000/the_cosmetic_outcome_of_acrylic_spherical_implants.10.aspx
  45. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6797167_Comparing_Outcomes_of_Enucleation_and_Evisceration
  46. https://www.academia.edu/24708591/Comparing_Outcomes_of_Enucleation_and_Evisceration
  47. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18097961/
  48. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1723427/
  49. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51808232_Long-term_surgical_outcomes_of_porous_polyethylene_orbital_implants_A_review_of_314_cases
  50. https://eyewiki.org/Enucleation
  51. https://www.aaojournal.org/article/S0161-6420%2806%2900869-4/abstract
  52. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7002516/
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1954760/
  54. https://www.aaojournal.org/article/S0161-6420%2823%2900887-4/pdf
  55. https://eyewiki.org/Exenteration
  56. https://entokey.com/enucleation-evisceration-and-exenteration-techniques-2/
  57. https://eyewiki.org/Panophthalmitis
  58. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5496312/
  59. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK481552/
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4397530/
  61. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4672132/
  62. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17237683/
  63. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1742706113006107
  64. https://www.healio.com/news/ophthalmology/20120225/simple-evisceration-technique-uses-radiofrequency
  65. https://journals.lww.com/md-journal/fulltext/2022/07290/outcomes_of_evisceration_or_enucleation_by.19.aspx
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.