LAUSR

The eye loss is disfiguring and the concern with redoing facial aesthetics is very old. Even though it is a difficult decision, there are some critical conditions, for example, blind and painful eyes, eyes with intraocular tumors or after severe trauma, in which the removal of the entire eye or its content is still mandatory.1 Archeological findings have revealed that around 500 BC Egyptian and Roman people losing an eye wore painted prostheses (a clay shell worn over or under the lids) to recover the proper appearance.2 Till the Middle Age, different combinations of moldable materials (eg, wool, clay) and noble metals (eg, gold, silver) were used to fabricate different kinds of ocular prosthesis; the thin metallic foil covering the anophthalmic socket was often enameled or painted to reproduce the color of natural iris, thereby providing the patient's face with more acceptable aesthetics.3 The surgical techniques used to remove the eye in toto or its content evolved at the same time than the evolution of the orbital implants. There are descriptions of old techniques (16th century) using a strong wire transfixing the globe, which was then drawn until the eye was out of the orbit.4 The procedures of human eye removal were not clearly standardized until the end of the 19th century5 and then evolved quickly. Nowadays, there are two well‐established main techniques: (a) evisceration which refers to the removal of the contents of the eye while the scleral shell and ocular muscle attachments are spared, and (b) enucleation which is a more radical measure involving the removal of the whole globe from the orbital socket. The majority of cases are suitable for evisceration, whereas enucleation is mandatory for Received: 1 January 2019 | Accepted: 18 March 2019 DOI: 10.1111/ijac.13236