Concerns of anophthalmic patients-a comparison between cryolite glass and polymethyl methacrylate prosthetic eye wearers.

PURPOSE: To compare the concerns of experienced cryolite glass and (poly)methyl methacrylate (PMMA) prosthetic eye wearers. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Concerns of Anophthalmic Patients Wearing Cryolite Glass Prosthetic Eyes.

PURPOSE: To identify the main concerns of patients experienced in wearing cryolite glass prosthetic eyes and to investigate how these have changed over time. METHODS: One hundred six patients experienced in wearing prosthetic eyes for at least 2 years were asked to complete an anonymous questionnaire regarding prosthetic eye concerns at the time of initial eye loss and at the present time. Main outcome measures included changes in levels of concern over time. RESULTS: Initially, the participants were mainly concerned about their appearance, health of the fellow eye, and coping with monocularity. Over time, there was a significant increase of the level of concern regarding the health of the remaining eye (p < 0.001) and regarding watering, crusting, and discharge (p < 0.001). Loss of balance did not change significantly (p = 0.302). All other concerns decreased significantly over time (p < 0.001), with levels of concern about appearance decreasing the most. The current leading concern was the health of the remaining eye followed by concerns about watering, crusting, and discharge. Length of time since natural eye loss was the most important explanatory variable, with significant impact on the concerns about appearance (p = 0.013), retention of the prosthetic eye (p = 0.002), and eyelid contour (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Health of the remaining eye is the most common current concern of anophthalmic patients, acknowledging the need of good ophthalmologic follow up after losing an eye. The second most important concern is with watering, crusting, and discharge, suggesting further research for establishing an evidence-based protocol for cryolite glass prosthetic eye maintenance and supportive treatment.