The study emphasized patients' concerns about the health of their remaining eye and their need for good advice at time of eye loss. Knowledge that their initial concerns about judging distance, reduced peripheral vision and appearance all decrease over time may help clinicians in counselling these patients. Watering, crusting and discharge was the chief present-day concern after health of the remaining eye.
Purpose To evaluate morphological alterations of meibomian glands (MGs) in the dry anophthalmic socket syndrome (DASS). Methods Fifteen unilateral anophthalmic patients wearing cryolite glass prosthetic eyes were enrolled. All patients with clinical blepharitis or other significant eyelid abnormalities were excluded. In vivo laser scanning confocal microscopy (LSCM) of the MGs in the lower eyelids both on the anophthalmic side and the healthy fellow eye was performed to quantify acinar unit density, acinar unit diameter, acinar unit area, meibum secretion reflectivity, the inhomogeneous appearance of the glandular interstice, and inhomogeneous appearance of the acinar walls. Results The lower eyelids of the anophthalmic sockets revealed a significant reduction of the acinar unit density (p = 0.003) as well as a significantly more inhomogeneous appearance of the periglandular interstices (p = 0.018) and the acinar unit walls (p = 0.015) than the healthy fellow eyelid. However, there were no significant differences regarding the acinar unit diameter, acinar unit area, and meibum secretion reflectivity of the MGs on the anophthalmic side compared to the healthy fellow eyelid (p ≥ 0.05, respectively). Conclusions The eyelids of anophthalmic sockets without clinical blepharitis demonstrate a reduced density of MG acinar units and a more inhomogeneous appearance of the periglandular interstices and the acinar unit walls. This can cause meibomian gland dysfunction contributing to DASS and suggests early treatment of these symptomatic patients, even in the clinical absence of any blepharitis signs.
Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the inflammatory response of the anophthalmic socket to prosthetic eye wear. Methods: One hundred and two prosthetic eye wearers were recruited for this observational study. Photographic grading scales were used to measure the severity of conjunctival inflammation and the extent and intensity of stained deposits on the prosthetic eyes. Tear volume was measured with the phenol red thread test. For mucoid discharge, visual analogue scales were used to assess frequency of occurrence, colour, volume and viscosity. For the prostheses, assessments were made of weight, shape, wearing time and frequency of cleaning. Results: Anophthalmic sockets had more severe conjunctival inflammation than their companion eyes (p = 0.0001). The difference in inflammation between the companion eye and the anophthalmic socket was associated with discharge volume (p = 0.01) and discharge viscosity (p = 0.007) with greater difference in inflammation being associated with higher levels of discharge volume and viscosity. A greater difference in inflammation was also associated with less surface deposition (p = 0.009). No evidence of associations was found between difference in conjunctival inflammation and the other variables. Conclusions: Recently developed grading scales for measuring inflammation in anophthalmic sockets and deposits on prosthetic eyes were used for the first time in this study. It is recommended that in clinical practice, inflammation grades for both socket and companion eye conjunctivae be compared, when determining if prosthesis-induced inflammation is present. The finding that more discharge was associated with more conjunctival inflammation is logical but the finding that less inflammation was associated with more deposits is counter-intuitive to those familiar with the contact lens literature. The apparently benign nature of at least some deposits on the prostheses raises questions about the maintenance of prosthetic eyes. We conclude that the simple presence of deposits is unlikely to be linked with inflammation of the conjunctiva in wearers of prostheses, who like those in this study, cleaned their prostheses regularly but not frequently.
Health of the remaining eye is the most common current concern of anophthalmic patients, acknowledging the need of good ophthalmologic follow up after losing an eye. The second most important concern is with watering, crusting, and discharge, suggesting further research for establishing an evidence-based protocol for cryolite glass prosthetic eye maintenance and supportive treatment.
The results of this study showed that many general and specific levels of concern were significantly lower for cryolite glass prosthetic eye wearers than for PMMA prosthetic eye wearers. The question of why there are significant differences and to what extent the material of the prosthesis (cryolite glass or PMMA) has an impact on various concerns remains unanswered and should be addressed in a prospective comparative multicentre trial.
of the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfi lms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.Printed on acid-free paper Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www. springer.com) v P r eface Prosthetic eyes have a history that stretches back to at least 2,900 BC. Prosthetic eye materials and techniques have evolved in keeping with the times: from clay, to wood and ivory, to enamelled silver and gold, to glass and, fi nally, to (poly)methyl methacrylate (PMMA) plastic. This last step (from glass to PMMA) was accompanied by a change in the profession that supplied and fi tted prosthetic eyes. PMMA eyes could be custom-made, but this required a different skill set to the one that optometrists had used successfully with glass for the previous 500 years. The technological and professional dislocation that the change from glass eyes to PMMA eyes brought about 70 years ago possibly accounts for the almost complete absence of prosthetic eye literature today. The knowledge underpinning the modern practice of ocular prosthetics appears to be based upon clinical observations acquired from practicing ocular prosthetists (ocularists) and the analogous fi elds of dental technology and contact lenses. This book has come about because of the sincere desire of the authors to provide a more scientifi c knowledge base for the clinical practice of ocular prosthetics by bringing together information from the literature on ophthalmology, prosthetic eyes and contact lenses and from experts working in these fi elds.The genesis of this book started when Keith Pine approached the University of Auckland's School of Optometry and Vision Science to seek advice about how best to go about writing it. He was introduced to Associate Professor Robert Jacobs who supported the concept of the book but felt that the lack of scientifi c knowledge in the fi eld was a major drawback and that more formal research should be undertaken into prosthetic eyes before a book should be contemplated. That was 6 years ago. The discussion resulted in Keith Pine enrolling in a Master of Science programme (later upgra...
Background:The aim was to develop tools to measure the condition of ocular prostheses and the socket's response to prosthetic eyewear. Methods: A novel staining technique for displaying deposits on prosthetic eyes was developed. Equal interval perceptual grading scales for measuring inferior palpebral conjunctival inflammation, and anterior and posterior stained surface deposits on prosthetic eyes were developed from 800 photographs of 43 volunteers. The photographs for each scale were chosen by the authors. A group of four ophthalmologists, three optometrists and three senior students was consulted about selection criteria and asked to position the photographs along a 1.5 m rule to determine equal intervals. Photographs judged not to represent exactly equal perceptual intervals were exchanged with others from the original pool. The final scales (a five-photograph scale for inflammation and two 11 photograph scales for deposits) were assessed for inter-rater reliability and test-retest reliability by groups of senior optometry students. Results: Standard deviations for inter-rater reliability tests were 0.52 scale units for the inflammation scale, 0.99 for the anterior surface deposits scale and 1.03 for the posterior surface deposits scale. The standard deviation of the test-retest differences for inflammation was 0.6 scale units and for both anterior and posterior surface deposits it was 0.71. Conclusions: A novel technique for displaying and measuring the intensity and extent of deposit formation on prosthetic eye surfaces has been described. The two equal interval perceptual grading scales that have been developed to quantify the extent of deposit formation together with the equal interval perceptual scale for grading severity of palpebral conjunctival inflammation will for the first time allow the effects of prosthetic eye wear to be evaluated. Further research to validate the scale for palpebral conjunctival inflammation in a clinical setting is recommended. The technique for staining deposits on prosthetic eyes is recommended for clinical practice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.