Purpose

To determine whether ocular prosthesis size influences prosthetic eye motility and the cosmesis.

---

Methods

Prospective, within-subject comparative study. Patients with a unilateral anophthalmic socket and two different sized ocular prostheses treated at Amsterdam UMC were studied. The fellow (contralateral) healthy eye served as the within-subject reference. Twenty four met the inclusion criteria. Each participant underwent consecutive eye-tracking measurements (percentage of movement compared to the contralateral eye) and was photographed with a 3D hand-held Vectra camera while randomly wearing a smaller and a larger prosthesis (≥10% volume difference).

---

Results

The median upgaze excursion was 60.5% (95% CI: 42.12 – 71.48) with small prosthesis vs. 58.5% with large prosthesis respectively (95% CI: 40.53 – 68.04), while for downgaze it was 49.0% (95% CI: 34.41 – 60.70) vs. 55.3% (95% CI: 39.86 – 71.21), for abduction 33.0% (95% CI: 26.87 – 46.63) compared to 35.6% (95% CI: 27.74 – 43.41) and for adduction 30.0% (95% CI: 23.87 – 37.28) compared to 33.5% (95% CI: 24.07 – 42.94). No statistically significant differences were found between the small and large prosthesis in any of the four gaze directions (p>0.05). Effect sizes were uniformly small across all directions (Cohen’s d range: 0.09–0.24), indicating that the observed mean differences are unlikely to be of clinical relevance . The larger ocular prosthesis was preferred more often than the smaller prosthesis for cosmetic volume and contour restoration, although this difference did not reach statistical significance (p>0.05).

---

Conclusion

Prosthesis size was not associated with a statistically significant effect on eye movements. Prosthesis selection may instead prioritize comfort, cosmesis, and socket health.

---

Additional Authors

First name	Last name	Base Hospital / Institution
I	Errachidi	Amsterdam UMC
O	Elsayed	Amsterdam UMC
AYX	Liu	Amsterdam UMC
L	VanLangenaecker	Amsterdam UMC
DT	Hartong	Amsterdam UMC

↑ Back to top