Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Manual compass measurement and trigonometric determination of proptosis

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the accuracy of manual compass measurement and trigonometric determination of proptosis (MCMATDP).

Methods

This agreement study included 120 eyes without eye diseases or injury of 60 patients who visited the ophthalmic clinic of Peking University Shenzhen Hospital from February 2020 to June 2020. The absolute values of proptosis were measured by MCMATDP and computed tomography (CT). The differences between the two methods were shown by Bland–Altman plot.

Results

The cohort comprised 25 males and 35 females (average age 38.3 years). The absolute value of proptosis measured by CT was correlated with the MCMATDP. Further analysis showed that a 95% limit of agreement (LoA) was − 0.53 to 0.60 mm in the right eye and − 0.46 to 0.55 mm in the left eye between CT and MCMATDP. In addition, the 95% LoA was − 0.49 to 0.60 mm in both eyes between the two methods. All points were < 5% in Bland–Altman plots.

Conclusions

Compared to CT, MCMATDP is rather consistent in proptosis measurement. The new method is feasible in clinical practice when measuring proptosis. With the development of non-contact intelligent measurement software and the continuous improvement in measurement accuracy, a non-invasive, simple, and inexpensive measurement mode is true based on the theory of MCMATDP.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Available on request.

References

  1. Nkenke E, Maier T, Benz M et al (2004) Hertel exophthalmometry versus computed tomography and optical 3D imaging for the determination of the globe position in zygomatic fractures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 33(2):125–133. https://doi.org/10.1054/ijom.2002.0481

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Genders SW, Mourits DL, Jasem M et al (2015) Parallax-free exophthalmometry: a comprehensive review of the literature on clinical exophthalmometry and the introduction of the first parallax-free exophthalmometer. Orbit 34(1):23–29. https://doi.org/10.3109/01676830.2014.963877

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Segni M, Bartley GB, Garrity JA et al (2002) Comparability of proptosis measurements by different techniques. Am J Ophthalmol 133(6):813–818. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9394(02)01429-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lam AK, Lam CF, Leung WK et al (2009) Intra-observer and inter-observer variation of Hertel exophthalmometry. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 29(4):472–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2008.00617.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kashkouli MB, Nojomi M, Parvaresh MM et al (2008) Normal values of hertel exophthalmometry in children, teenagers, and adults from Tehran. Iran Optom Vis Sci 85(10):1012–1017. https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181890dc7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mourits MP, Lombardo SH, van der Sluijs FA et al (2004) Reliability of exophthalmos measurement and the exophthalmometry value distribution in a healthy Dutch population and in Graves’ patients. An exploratory study Orbit 23(3):161–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/01676830490504089

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sleep TJ, Manners RM (2002) Interinstrument variability in Hertel-type exophthalmometers. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 18(4):254–257. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002341-200207000-00004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Vardizer Y, Berendschot TT, Mourits MP (2005) Effect of exophthalmometer design on its accuracy. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 21(6):427–430. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.iop.0000180066.87572.39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Beden U, Ozarslan Y, Ozturk HE et al (2008) Exophthalmometry values of Turkish adult population and the effect of age, sex, refractive status, and Hertel base values on Hertel readings. Eur J Ophthalmol 18(2):165–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/112067210801800201

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kim IT, Choi JB (2001) Normal range of exophthalmos values on orbit computerized tomography in Koreans. Ophthalmologica 215(3):156–162. https://doi.org/10.1159/000050850

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Zhang W, Zeng J, Huang Q et al (2021) The feasibility analysis of calculating proptosis by simple Pythagorean theorem. Eur J Ophthalmol 31(2):397–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/1120672120901704

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Barrett GD (1993) An improved universal theoretical formula for intraocular lens power prediction. J Cataract Refract Surg 19(6):713–720. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0886-3350(13)80339-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Davanger M (1970) Principles and sources of error in exophthalmometry. A new exophthalmometer Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 48(4):625–633

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Musch DC, Frueh BR, Landis JR (1985) The reliability of Hertel exophthalmometry Observer variation between physician and lay readers. Ophthalmology 92(9):1177–1180. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0161-6420(85)33880-0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pereira TS, Kuniyoshi CH, Leite CA et al (2020) A comparative study of clinical vs. digital exophthalmometry measurement methods. J Ophthalmol. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1397410

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Nkenke E, Benz M, Maier T et al (2003) Relative en- and exophthalmometry in zygomatic fractures comparing optical non-contact, non-ionizing 3D imaging to the Hertel instrument and computed tomography. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 31(6):362–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2003.07.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None

Funding

The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, 518036, Guangdong, China

    Weili Zhang, Yile Chen, Qinying Huang & Jinying Li

  2. Oral Medicine Department, Jinggangshan University, Jinggangshan, 343600, Jiangxi, China

    Junlin Zeng

  3. Department of Ophthalmology, ZheJiang Eye Hospital, Wenzhou, 325000, ZheJiang, China

    Wencan Wu

Authors
  1. Weili Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Junlin Zeng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yile Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Qinying Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wencan Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jinying Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

None.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jinying Li.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all patients participated.

Consent to publication

Images used do not identify any patients.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional committee (Peking University Shenzhen Hospital) and with the Helsinki declaration.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, W., Zeng, J., Chen, Y. et al. Manual compass measurement and trigonometric determination of proptosis. Int Ophthalmol 43, 4443–4450 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-023-02819-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-023-02819-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation