Anatomy and Physiology

  • Keith R. Pine
  • Brian H. Sloan
  • Robert J. Jacobs


A sound appreciation of the characteristics of the face and the anatomy (structure) and physiology (function) of the orbital tissues is a necessary precursor to understanding prosthetic eye performance and the response of the anophthalmic socket to prosthetic eye wear.


Lacrimal Gland Extraocular Muscle Nasolacrimal Duct Inferior Rectus Frontalis Muscle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Tolleth H. Concepts for the plastic surgeon from art and sculpture. Clin Plast Surg. 1987;14(4):585–98.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen WP. Oculoplastic surgery. The essentials. New York/Stuttgart: Thieme; 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lambros V. Models of facial aging and implications for treatment. Clin Plast Surg. 2008;36:319–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Worral E. What factors affect maxillofacial prosthetists in the rehabilitation of the anophthalmic patient. World Coalit Anaplastol J. 2014;1:17–20.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Doxanas MT, Anderson RL. Oriental eyelids. An anatomic study. Arch Ophthalmol. 1984;102(8):1232–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lemke BN, Della Rocca RC. Surgery of the eyelids and orbit: an anatomical approach. Norwalk: Appleton and Lange; 1990.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    King DC, Michels KM. Muscular tension and the human blink rate. J Exp Psychol. 1957;53(2):113–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carney LG, Hill RM. The nature of normal blinking patterns. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1982;60(3):427–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McMonnies C, Lowe R. After-care. In: Phillips AJ, Speedwell L, editors. Contact lenses. 5th ed. Edinburgh: Butterworth Heinemann Elsevier; 2007. p. 388–9.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Donald C, Hamilton L, Doughty MJ. A quantitative assessment of the location and width of Marx’s line along the marginal zone of the human eyelid. Optom Vis Sci. 2003;80(8):564–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ruskell GL, Bergmanson JPG. Anatomy and physiology of the cornea and related structures. In: Phillips AJ, Speedwell L, editors. Contact lenses. 5th ed. Edinburgh: Butterworth Heinemann Elsevier; 2007. p. 388–9.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liotet S, Triclot MP, Perderiset M, Warnet VN, Laroche L. The role of conjunctival mucus in contact lens fitting. CLAO J. 1985;11(2):149–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bowen R. Mucus and mucins, 1998. Available from: Accessed 27 Jun 2015.
  14. 14.
    Adams AD. The morphology of human conjunctival mucus. Arch Ophthalmol. 1979;97(4):730–4. [Research Support, U.S. Gov’t, P.H.S.].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guillon JP, Godfrey A. Tears and contact lenses. In: Phillips AJ, Speedwell L, editors. Contact lenses. Edinburgh: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann; 2007. p. 111–27.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Norn MS. Tear secretion in normal eyes. Estimated by a new method: the lacrimal streak dilution test. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1965;43(4):567–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schirmer O. Studienzurphysiologieundpathologie der tranenabsonderung und tranenabfuhr. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1903;56:197–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim SE, Yoon JS, Lee SY, Kim SE, Yoon JS, Lee SY. Tear measurement in prosthetic eye users with Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;149(4):602–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shaw RB. Jr1, Kahn DM. Aging of the midface bony elements: a three-dimensional computed tomographic study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;119(2):675–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shome D, Honavar SG, Raizada K, Raizada D. Implant and prosthesis movement after enucleation. A randomized controlled trial. Ophthalmology. 2010;117:1638–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim JH, Lee MJ, Choung HK, Kim NJ, Hwang SW, Sung MS, et al. Conjunctival cytologic features in anophthalmic patients wearing an ocular prosthesis. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;24(4):290–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Allen L, Kolder HE, Bulgarelli EM, Bulgarelli DM. Prosthetic eyes and tear measurements. Ophthalmology. 1980;87(2):155–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fett DR, Scott R, Putterman AM. Evaluation of lubricants for the prosthetic eye wearer. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 1986;2(1):29–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tyers AG, Collin JRO. Orbital implants and post-enucleation socket syndrome. Trans Ophthalmol Soc U K. 1982;102:90–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Smit TJ, Koornneef L, Mourits M, Groet E, Otto AJ. Primary versus secondary intraorbital implants. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 1990;6:115–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keith R. Pine
    • 1
  • Brian H. Sloan
    • 2
  • Robert J. Jacobs
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Optometry and Vision ScienceThe University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.New Zealand National Eye CentreThe University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations