Factors affecting dimensions of the 3D ocular prosthesis in patients rehabilitated at Mahidol University

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: Apr 30, 2018
Keywords:
Customized ocular prosthesis, Enucleation, Evisceration, Ocular defect, Ocular prosthetic dimension, Stock ocular prosthesis

Main Article Content

Natdhanai Chotprasert
คณะทันตแพทยศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยมหิดล
Hai Phan Hoang
Lajohnkiart Janebodin
kanokwan Charoonpatrapong
Waqas Tanveer
Kawin Sipiyaruk

Abstract

Objective:  This study aimed to evaluate three factors affecting dimensions of the ‘3D ocular prosthesis’ in patients rehabilitated at Mahidol University.


Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on non-irradiated and healthy anophthalmic patients, including 82 subjects aged above 15 years old. All 82 customized ocular prostheses, fabricated following the Mahidol University’s patent, were measured with a digital caliper (Mitutoyo 573 Digimatic Absolute Point Caliper) in horizontal, vertical, and anteroposterior (thickness) dimensions. Three main factors (age, gender, and surgical techniques) were evaluated in relations to the dimensions of an ocular prosthesis. The data were statistically analyzed using an independent t-test and a one-way ANOVA.


Results: An independent t-test showed that a horizontal dimension was significantly greater in males than females (p=0.020), and a thickness dimension was significant difference significantly different in surgical techniques, which enucleation technique showed thicker ocular prosthesis compared with evisceration technique (p=0.024). However, one-way ANOVA showed that all dimensions of an ocular prosthesis were not significant differences significantly different among age groups (p>0.05).


Conclusion: This study presented the first set of data for the 3D ocular prosthesis in patients rehabilitated at Mahidol University. Gender had an effect on horizontal dimension whilst surgical technique had an effect on the thickness of ocular prosthesis.

Article Details

How to Cite
1.
Chotprasert N, Hoang HP, Janebodin L, Charoonpatrapong kanokwan, Tanveer W, Sipiyaruk K. Factors affecting dimensions of the 3D ocular prosthesis in patients rehabilitated at Mahidol University. M Dent J [Internet]. 2018 Apr. 30 [cited 2024 Dec. 21];38(1):57-64. Available from: https://he02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/mdentjournal/article/view/179248
Issue
Vol. 38 No. 1 (2018): January-April
Section
Original articles

References

1. Lubkin V, Sloan S. Enucleation and psychic trauma. Adv Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 1990; 8: 259-262.
2. Tillman WT. Psychological recuperation of the patient. Adv Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 1990; 8: 263-273.
3. Rasmussen ML, Ekholm O, Prause JU, Toft PB. Quality of life of eye amputated patients. Acta Ophthalmol 2012; 90: 435-440.
4. Goiato MC, dos Santos DM, Bannwart LC, et al. Psychosocial impact on anophthalmic patients wearing ocular prosthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013; 42: 113-119.
5. Raizada K, Rani D. Ocular prosthesis. Contact Lens & Anterior Eye 2007; 30: 152-162.
6. Goiato MC, Bannwart LC, Haddad MF, dos Santos DM, Pesqueira AA, Miyahara GI. Fabrication techniques for ocular prostheses--an overview. Orbit 2014; 33: 229-233.
7. Rubin PA. Enucleation, evisceration, and exenteration. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 1993; 4: 39-48.
8. Kaltreider SA, Lucarelli MJ. A simple algorithm for selection of implant size for enucleation and evisceration: a prospective study. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2002; 18: 336-341.
9. Sajjad A. Ocular Prosthesis - A Simulation of Human Anatomy: A Literature Review. Cureus 2012; 4(12): e74.
10. Karni PA, Gupta D, Sharma H. A Novel Technique to Fabricate Iris Shading of Ocular Prosthesis - A case report. Current Journal of Applied Science and Technology 2017; 21: 1-5.
11. Mendelson B, Wong CH. Changes in the facial skeleton with aging: implications and clinical applications in facial rejuvenation. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2012; 36: 753-760.
12. Pessa JE, Chen Y. Curve analysis of the aging orbital aperture. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002; 109: 751-755.
13. Wong TY, Foster PJ, Ng TP, Tielsch JM, Johnson GJ, Seah SK. Variations in ocular biometry in an adult Chinese population in Singapore: the Tanjong Pagar Survey. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001; 42: 73-80.
14. Hahn FJ, Chu WK. Ocular volume measured by CT scans. Neuroradiology 1984; 26: 419-420.
15. Igbinedion BO, Ogbeide OU. Measurement of normal ocular volume by the use of computed tomography. Niger J Clin Pract 2013; 16: 315-319.
16. Bentley RP, Sgouros S, Natarajan K, Dover MS, Hockley AD. Normal changes in orbital volume during childhood. J Neurosurg 2002; 96: 742-746.
17. Furuta M. Measurement of orbital volume by computed tomography: especially on the growth of the orbit. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2001; 45: 600-606.
18. Shaw RB, Jr., Kahn DM. Aging of the midface bony elements: a three-dimensional computed tomographic study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 119: 675-681.
19. Erkoc MF, Oztoprak B, Gumus C, Okur A. Exploration of orbital and orbital soft-tissue volume changes with gender and body parameters using magnetic resonance imaging. Exp Ther Med 2015; 9: 1991-1997.
20. Farkas LG, Posnick JC, Hreczko TM, Pron GE. Growth patterns in the orbital region: a morphometric study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 1992; 29: 315-318.
21. Kahn DM, Shaw RB, Jr. Aging of the bony orbit: a three-dimensional computed tomographic study. Aesthet Surg J 2008; 28: 258-264.
22. Rao SB, Akki S, Kumar D, Mishra SK. A Novel Method for the Management of Anophthalmic Socket. Adv Biomed Res 2017; 6: 72.
23. Kennedy RE. The Effect of Early Enucleation on the Orbit in Animals and Humans. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 1964; 62: 459-510.
24. Hintschich C, Zonneveld F, Baldeschi L, Bunce C, Koornneef L. Bony orbital development after early enucleation in humans. Br J Ophthalmol 2001; 85: 205-208.
25. Yago K, Furuta M. Orbital growth after unilateral enucleation in infancy without an orbital implant. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2001; 45: 648-652.
26. Lyle CE, Wilson MW, Li CS, Kaste SC. Comparison of orbital volumes in enucleated patients with unilateral retinoblastoma: hydroxyapatite implants versus silicone implants. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 23: 393-396.
27. Lukats O, Vizkelety T, Markella Z, et al. Measurement of orbital volume after enucleation and orbital implantation. PLoS One 2012; 7: e50333.
28. Augusteyn RC, Nankivil D, Mohamed A, Maceo B, Pierre F, Parel JM. Human ocular biometry. Exp Eye Res 2012; 102: 70-75.
29. Raizada D, Raizada K, Naik M, Murthy R, Bhaduri A, Honavar SG. Custom ocular prosthesis in children: how often is a change required? Orbit 2011; 30: 208-213.
30. Kaltreider SA, Peake LR, Carter BT. Pediatric enucleation: analysis of volume replacement. Arch Ophthalmol 2001; 119: 379-384.
31. Kaltreider SA. The ideal ocular prosthesis: analysis of prosthetic volume. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 16: 388-392.
32. Nakra T, Simon GJ, Douglas RS, Schwarcz RM, McCann JD, Goldberg RA. Comparing outcomes of enucleation and evisceration. Ophthalmology 2006; 113(12): 2270-5.
33. Pine KR, Sloan BH, Jacobs RJ. Clinical Ocular Prosthetics. Switzerland: Springer; 2015.
34. Modugno A, Mantelli F, Sposato S, Moretti C, Lambiase A, Bonini S. Ocular prostheses in the last century: a retrospective analysis of 8018 patients. Eye (Lond) 2013; 27: 865-870.
35. Cheng GY, Li B, Li LQ, et al. Review of 1375 enucleations in the TongRen Eye Centre, Beijing. Eye (Lond) 2008; 22: 1404-1409.
36. Khan IJ, Ghauri AJ, Hodson J, et al. Defining the limits of normal conjunctival fornix anatomy in a healthy South Asian population. Ophthalmology 2014; 121: 492-497.