Concerns of anophthalmic patients—a comparison between cryolite glass and polymethyl methacrylate prosthetic eye wearers
- 34 Downloads
To compare the concerns of experienced cryolite glass and (poly)methyl methacrylate (PMMA) prosthetic eye wearers.
One hundred six experienced cryolite glass and 63 experienced PMMA prosthetic eye wearers completed an anonymous questionnaire regarding general and specific prosthetic eye concerns at least 2 years after natural eye loss. From these independent anophthalmic populations, we identified 34 case-control pairs matched for the known influencing demographic variables of gender, occupation, age, and time since natural eye loss.
The levels of concern were significantly lower in the cryolite glass group than those in the PMMA group for the following: loss of balance (p < 0.001), phantom sight vision (p < 0.001), pain (p < 0.001), receiving good advice (p = 0.001), fullness of orbit (p = 0.001), size (p = 0.007), direction of gaze relative to the healthy fellow eye (p = 0.005), eye lid contour (p = 0.037), comfort of the prosthetic eye (p < 0.001), colour relative to the healthy fellow eye (p < 0.001), and retention of the prosthetic eye (p < 0.001). Concerns about watering, crusting, discharge, visual perception, appearance, movement of the prosthetic eye, and health of the remaining eye were not significantly different between both groups.
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.
KeywordsOcular prosthesis Artificial eye Prosthetic eye Cryolite glass PMMA Anophthalmia Concerns Quality of life
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. 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.
- 1.Pine KR, Sloan BH, Jacobs RJ (2015) Clinical ocular prosthetics, 1st edn. Springer International 325 Publishing, Berlin, p 278Google Scholar
- 3.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 77:349–354Google Scholar
- 11.Pine KR, Sloan B, Jacobs RJ (2012) Biosocial profile of New Zealand prosthetic eye wearers. NZ Med J 125(1363):29–38Google Scholar
- 17.Pine NS, de Terte I, Pine KR (2017) The impact of eye loss and prosthetic eye wear on recreational, occupational and social areas of functioning. J Ophthalmol and Vis Sci 2(1):1016Google Scholar
- 18.Pine NS, de Terte I, Pine KR (2017) Time heals: an investigation into how anophthalmic patients feel about eye loss and wearing a prosthetic eye. J Ophthalmol and Vis Sci. 2(2):1018Google Scholar
- 20.Rokohl AC, Koch KR, Trester M, Trester W, Pine KR, Heindl LM (2017) Concerns of anopthalmic patients wearing cryolite glass prosthetic eyes. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg: https://doi.org/10.1097/IOP.0000000000001021