Cryolite glass prosthetic eyes—the response of the anophthalmic socket
- 38 Downloads
To investigate mucoid discharge and the inflammatory response of anophthalmic sockets to cryolite glass prosthetic eye wear.
Patients and methods
A total of 101 cryolite glass prosthetic eye wearers used visual analog scales (0–10) to measure frequency, color, volume, and viscosity of mucoid discharge associated with their prosthesis. Standardized photographs of the conjunctiva of their anophthalmic sockets were taken and conjunctival inflammation was semi-quantitatively graded (0–4). All characteristics of discharge and conjunctival inflammation were correlated to eye loss cause, hand washing behavior, and cleaning regimes as explanatory variables.
Mean mucoid discharge characteristics (0–10 scale) were frequency 5.3 ± 2.8, color 4.8 ± 3.2, volume 4.9 ± 3.0, and viscosity 5.1 ± 3.2. The mean conjunctival inflammation score (0–4 scale) was 2.1 ± 1.0. There was a positive correlation between the grade of conjunctival inflammation and the frequency (p = 0.018), color (p = 0.001), volume (p = 0.003), and the viscosity of mucoid discharge (p = 0.005). More conjunctival inflammation was associated with higher frequency of cleaning (p < 0.001) and lower frequency of hand washing before removal (p = 0.001). Higher frequency, color, volume, and viscosity of discharge were associated with higher frequency of cleaning (p ≤ 0.001).
Discharge severity associated with prosthetic eye wear was positively correlated with more conjunctival inflammation, higher cleaning frequency, and less hand washing before handling. The results suggest that cryolite glass eyes should not be removed daily for cleaning and that further research should be undertaken to develop a standardized treatment protocol for managing inflammation and mucoid discharge. This protocol would advise hand washing before handling cryolite glass eyes and recommend a minimum period of wear between cleaning sessions.
KeywordsProsthetic eyes Ocular prostheses Anophthalmic socket Enucleation Eye loss Discharge
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Alexander C. Rokohl, Werner Adler, Konrad R. Koch, Joel M. Mor, Rening Jia, Nicola S. Pine, Keith R. Pine, and Ludwig M. Heindl certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge, or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. The participants in this study were recruited from the Trester-Institute for Ocular Prosthetics and Artificial Eyes in Cologne that is owned and operated by M. Trester. All authors have full control of all primary data and they agree to allow Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology to review their data upon request.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee of the University of Auckland and of the University of Cologne and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 2.Rokohl AC, Koch KR, Trester M, Trester W, Pine KR, Heindl LM (2017) Concerns of Anophthalmic patients wearing Cryolite glass prosthetic eyes. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/IOP.0000000000001021
- 7.Rokohl AC, Koch KR, Adler W, Trester M, Trester W, Pine NS, Pine KR, Heindl LM (2018) Concerns of anophthalmic patients-a comparison between cryolite glass and polymethyl methacrylate prosthetic eye wearers. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-018-3942-8
- 11.Kashkouli MB, Zolfaghari R, Es'haghi A, Amirsardari A, Abtahi MB, Karimi N, Alemzadeh A, Aghamirsalim M (2016) Tear film, lacrimal drainage system, and eyelid findings in subjects with Anophthalmic socket discharge. Am J Ophthalmol 165:33–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2016.02.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Litwin AS, Worrell E, Roos JC, Edwards B, Malhotra R (2017) Can we improve the tolerance of an ocular prosthesis by enhancing its surface finish? Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/IOP.0000000000000891
- 15.Toribio A, Marrodan T, Fernandez-Natal I, Martinez-Blanco H, Rodriguez-Aparicio L, Ferrero MA (2017) Study of conjunctival flora in anophthalmic patients: influence on the comfort of the socket. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 255:1669–1679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-017-3708-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Jones CA, Collin JR (1983) A classification and review the causes of discharging sockets. Trans Ophthalmol Soc U K 103(Pt 3):351–353Google Scholar