This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (8)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

GERARD M. SHANNON, MD; JOHN J. COYLE, MD

Arch Ophthalmol. 1965;74(6):811-812.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

Various materials have been used to replace lost anatomic parts and for the repair of deformities. In 1953 Scales¹ outlined the properties of an ideal soft-tissue substitute. These properties are as follows: (1) not physically modified by tissue fluid, (2) chemically inert, (3) no inflammatory reaction, (4) nonallergenic, (5) noncarcinogenic, (6) capable of resisting mechanical strains, (7) capable of being sterilized, (8) capable of fabrication into any form.

The list of such soft-tissue substitutes is a long one. In ophthalmology such materials have ranged from heavy metals to glass and plastic. Sponge implants have been used in enucleation and evisceration, solid silicone rubber in retinal detachment surgery, and polyethylene and silicone tubing in the repair of the lacrimal drainage system.

Teflon has been used to repair orbital floor defects in "blow-out" fractures.

In the case presented here, silicone rubber (Liquid Silastic*) is the soft-tissue substitute. Silicone rubbers (in the . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Philadelphia

Footnotes
Submitted for publication June 30, 1965.

Presented at the Pennsylvania Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology, Bedford, Pa, May 1965. From the Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia.

Reprint requests to 8118 Bustleton Ave, Philadelphia, Pa 19152 (Dr. Shannon).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?