Zusammenfassung
Hintergrund
Die augenprothetische Versorgung ist aus funktionellen, ästhetischen und psychosomatischen Gründen entscheidend für die Rehabilitation nach okulärer Exstirpation.
Fragestellung
Es soll ein Überblick über Anpassung, Handhabung und Komplikationen von Augenprothesen gegeben werden.
Methoden
Der Beitrag bietet eine Literaturübersicht aus PUBMED und eigene klinische Ergebnisse.
Ergebnisse
Augenprothesen, aus Glas oder Kunststoff gefertigt, können 5 bis 8 Wochen postoperativ angepasst werden. Bis dahin sollte ein Konformer getragen werden, um einer die Prothesenfähigkeit bedrohenden Vernarbung der Bindehautfornices vorzubeugen. Kunstaugen können kontinuierlich getragen werden, unterbrochen von einer kurzen regelmäßigen Reinigung mit individuell festzulegendem Intervall. Tränenersatzmittel und Lidkantenpflege bessern den Tragekomfort. Glasprothesen müssen alle 1 bis 2 Jahre erneuert, Kunststoffprothesen 1-mal im Jahr poliert werden. Komplikationen wie die gigantopapilläre Konjunktivitis oder eine Blepharokonjunktivitis sicca werden durch schlechten Prothesensitz, hohes Prothesenalter und unzureichende Pflege begünstigt. Bei Socketschrumpfungen oder dem anophthalmischen Socketsyndrom muss die Prothesenfähigkeit chirurgisch wiederhergestellt werden.
Schlussfolgerungen
Korrekte Anpassung, Handhabung und Pflege von Augenprothesen sowie eine adäquate Therapie möglicher Komplikationen sind maßgeblich, um Patienten nach okulärer Exstirpation dauerhaft funktionell, ästhetisch und psychosomatisch zu rehabilitieren.
Abstract
Background
Ocular prosthetics make a decisive contribution to the functional, esthetic and psychosomatic rehabilitation of patients after ocular extirpation.
Objectives
This article provides an overview of the fitting, daily care and complications of ocular prosthetics.
Methods
The study comprised a PubMed literature review and own clinical results.
Results
Ocular prosthetics made from cryolite glass or perspex can be manufactured and fitted 5–8 weeks after removal of the eye. During this period a conformer is placed within the conjunctival sac in order to prevent scar formation and shrinking of the socket. Artificial eyes can be worn continuously, only interrupted by a short but regular cleaning procedure. Artificial tears and lid hygiene improve the comfort of wearing. Glass prostheses have to be renewed every 1–2 years, while perspex prostheses need to be polished once a year. Complications, such as giant papillary conjunctivitis or blepharoconjunctivitis sicca are facilitated by poor fit, increased age and inappropriate care of the prosthetic device. In the case of socket shrinkage or anophthalmic socket syndrome, surgical interventions are needed to re-enable the use of an artificial eye.
Conclusion
Adequate fitting, daily care of ocular prosthetics and therapeutic management of associated complications are mandatory for a durable functional, esthetic and psychosomatic rehabilitation after ocular extirpation.
Literatur
Geirsdottir A, Agnarsson BA, Helgadottir G et al (2014) Enucleation in Iceland 1992–2004: study in a defined population. Acta Ophthalmol 92:121–125
de Gottrau P, Holbach LM, Naumann GO (1994) Clinicopathological review of 1146 enucleations (1980–90). Br J Ophthalmol 78:260–265
Schittkowski MP, Gundlach KK, Guthoff RF (2003 [Congenital clinical anophthalmia and blind microphthalmia]. Ophthalmologe 100:507–517
Lubkin V, Sloan S (1990) Enucleation and psychic trauma. Adv Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 8:259–262
Ahn JM, Lee SY, Yoon JS (2010) Health-related quality of life and emotional status of anophthalmic patients in Korea. Am J Ophthalmol 149:1005–1011.e1
Pine KR (2012) Response of the Anophthalmic Socket to Prosthetic Eye Wear. Dissertation, University of Auckland
Hintschich C, Baldeschi L (2001) [Rehabilitation of anophthalmic patients. Results of a survey]. Ophthalmologe 98:74–80
Pine K, Sloan B, Stewart J et al (2011) Concerns of anophthalmic patients wearing artificial eyes. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 39:47–52
Paré A (1575) Les Oeuvres. Gabriel Buon, Paris
Sattler CH (1922) Das künstliche Auge. In: Axenfeld T, Birch-Hirschfeld A, Cords R et al (Hrsg) Augenärztliche Operationslehre. Springer, Berlin, S 1856–1893
Hazard-Mirault (1818) Traité pratique de l’oeil artificiel. Duponcet, Paris
Paré A (1582) Opera. A docto viro plerisque locis recognita: et latinitate donata, Jacobi Guillemeau. labore &; diligentia. Apud Jocabum Du-Puys, Parisiis
Martin O, Clodius L (1979) The history of the artificial eye. Ann Plast Surg 3:168–171
Nieden FA (1881) Über Zelluloidaugen. Zbl f Aughlk 5:37–39
Fröhlich C (1881) Zelluloidprothesen. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 19:349–352
Mackenzie W (1840) A practical treatise on the diseases of the eye. Longmans, London
Prichard A (1851) Surgical cases admitted under Augustin Prichard, Esq, Surgeon to the Infirmary. Bristol Royal Infirm Prov Med Surg J 15:66–67
den Tonkelaar I, Henkes HE, van Leersum GK (1991) Herman Snellen (1834–1908) and Muller’s ‚reform-auge‘. A short history of the artificial eye. Doc Ophthalmol 77:349–354
Raizada K, Rani D (2007) Ocular prosthesis. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 30:152–162
Baino F, Perero S, Ferraris S et al (2014) Biomaterials for orbital implants and ocular prostheses: overview and future prospects. Acta Biomater 10:1064–1087
Feinbloom W (1937) A plastic contact lens. Am J Optom 14:41–49
Buckel M, Bovet J (1992) [The eye as an art form: the ocular prosthesis]. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 200:594–595
Mowade TK, Dange SP (2011) An innovative technique for customizing the stock acrylic resin ocular prosthesis. Indian J Dent Res 22:716–718
Patil SB, Meshramkar R, Naveen BH et al (2008) Ocular prosthesis: a brief review and fabrication of an ocular prosthesis for a geriatric patient. Gerodontology 25:57–62
Cote RE, Haddad SE (1990) Fitting a prosthesis over phthisis bulbi or discolored blind eyes. Adv Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 8:136–145
Goiato MC, Nicolau EI, Mazaro JV et al (2010) Mobility, aesthetic, implants, and satisfaction of the ocular prostheses wearers. J Craniofac Surg 21:160–164
https://hilfsmittel.gkv-spitzenverband.de. Zugegriffen: 14. Jan. 2015
http://www.rehadat-hilfsmittel.de/de/. Zugegriffen: 14. Jan. 2015
https://www.g-ba.de/downloads/62-492-934/HilfsM-RL_2014-07-17. Zugegriffen: 14. Jan. 2015
https://hilfsmittel.gkv-spitzenverband.de/produktlisteZurArt_input.action?paramArtId=1561. Zugegriffen: 14. Jan. 2015
Chin K, Margolin CB, Finger PT (2006) Early ocular prosthesis insertion improves quality of life after enucleation. Optometry 77:71–75
Vincent AL, Webb MC, Gallie BL et al (2002) Prosthetic conformers: a step towards improved rehabilitation of enucleated children. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 30:58–59
Avisar I, Norris JH, Quinn S et al (2011) Temporary cosmetic painted prostheses in anophthalmic surgery: an alternative to early postoperative clear conformers. Eye (Lond) 25:1418–1422
Bailey CS, Buckley RJ (1991) Ocular prostheses and contact lenses. I–Cosmetic devices. BMJ 302:1010–1012
Patel BC, Sapp NA, Collin R (1998) Standardized range of conformers and symblepharon rings. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 14:144–145
Parr GR, Goldman BM, Rahn AO (1983) Postinsertion care of the ocular prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 49:220–224
Pine KR, Sloan BH, Jacobs RJ (2013) A proposed model of the response of the anophthalmic socket to prosthetic eye wear and its application to the management of mucoid discharge. Med Hypotheses 81:300–305
Kirschnick O (2010) Augenpflege. In: Kirschnick O (Hrsg) Pflegetechniken von A – Z. Georg Thieme, Stuttgart, S 15–22
Osborn KL, Hettler D (2010) A survey of recommendations on the care of ocular prostheses. Optometry 81:142–145
Trawnik WR (1990) Care of the ocular prosthesis. Adv Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 8:146–148
Fett DR, Scott R, Putterman AM (1986) Evaluation of lubricants for the prosthetic eye wearer. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2:29–31
Harting F, Florke OW, Bornfeld N et al (1984) [Surface changes in glass eye prostheses]. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 185:272–275
Pine KR, Sloan B, Han KI et al (2013) Deposit buildup on prosthetic eye material (in vitro) and its effect on surface wettability. Clin Ophthalmol 7:313–319
Pine KR, Sloan B, Jacobs RJ (2012) Deposit buildup on prosthetic eyes and implications for conjunctival inflammation and mucoid discharge. Clin Ophthalmol 6:1755–1762
Goiato MC, Mancuso DN, Sundefeld MLMM et al (2005) Aesthetic and functional ocular rehabilitation. Oral Oncology Extra 41:162–164
Donshik PC (1994) Giant papillary conjunctivitis. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 92:687–744
Donshik PC (2003) Contact lens chemistry and giant papillary conjunctivitis. Eye Contact Lens 29:S37–S39 (discussion S57)
Bischoff G (2014) [Giant papillary conjunctivitis]. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 231:518–521
Patel V, Allen D, Morley AM et al (2009) Features and management of an acute allergic response to acrylic ocular prostheses. Orbit 28:339–341
Allen L, Kolder HE, Bulgarelli EM et al (1980) Artificial eyes and tear measurements. Ophthalmology 87:155–157
Jang SY, Lee SY, Yoon JS (2013) Meibomian gland dysfunction in longstanding prosthetic eye wearers. Br J Ophthalmol 97:398–402
McMonnies CW (2007) Incomplete blinking: exposure keratopathy, lid wiper epitheliopathy, dry eye, refractive surgery, and dry contact lenses. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 30:37–51
Christensen JN, Fahmy JA (1974) The bacterial flora of the conjunctival anophthalmic socket in glass prosthesis-carriers. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 52:801–809
Vasquez RJ, Linberg JV (1989) The anophthalmic socket and the prosthetic eye. A clinical and bacteriologic study. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 5:277–280
Quaranta-Leoni FM (2008) Treatment of the anophthalmic socket. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 19:422–427
Hintschich CR, Beyer-Machule CK (1996) [Dermal fat transplant as autologous orbital implant]. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 208:135–141
Allen R, Nerad JA (2006) Enophthalmos associated with the anophthalmic socket. In: Guthoff R, Katowitz J (Hrsg) Oculoplastics and orbit. Springer, Berlin, S 248–251
Dutton JJ (1995) Enucleation and Evisceration. In: Naugle TC, Hesse RJ, Fry CL (Hrsg) Diagnosis and management of oculoplastic and orbital disorders: proceedings of the 43rd Annual Symposium, New Orleans, LA, USA, February 18–20, 1994, organized by the New Orleans Academy of Ophthalmology. Kugler, Amsterdam, S 321–354
Hatt M (1992) [Orbitoplasty in patients with artificial eyes]. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 200:424–427
Kaltreider SA (2000) The ideal ocular prosthesis: analysis of prosthetic volume. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 16:388–392
Jordan DR (2004) Localization of extraocular muscles during secondary orbital implantation surgery: the tunnel technique: experience in 100 patients. Ophthalmology 111:1048–1054
Guillinta P, Vasani SN, Granet DB et al (2003) Prosthetic motility in pegged versus unpegged integrated porous orbital implants. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 19:119–122
Custer PL, Kennedy RH, Woog JJ et al (2003) Orbital implants in enucleation surgery: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 110:2054–2061
Lin CJ, Liao SL, Jou JR et al (2002) Complications of motility peg placement for porous hydroxyapatite orbital implants. Br J Ophthalmol 86:394–396
Song JS, Oh J, Baek SH (2006) A survey of satisfaction in anophthalmic patients wearing ocular prosthesis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 244:330–335
Struck MF, Bergert H, Hohaus C et al (2008) [Misleading anisocoria in a comatose 15-year-old with head injury]. Unfallchirurg 111:940–943
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Interessenkonflikt
K.R. Koch, W. Trester, N. Müller-Uri, M. Trester, C. Cursiefen und L.M. Heindl geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.
Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Koch, K., Trester, W., Müller-Uri, N. et al. Augenprothetische Versorgung. Ophthalmologe 113, 133–142 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-015-0091-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-015-0091-x