Abstract Listings 2026

Purpose

To evaluate the feasibility and non-inferiority of a Computer Aided Design (CAD) -based workflow for fabricating ocular prostheses compared with conventional methods.

Methods

This prospective single-group crossover study was conducted at the Department of ophthalmology, Amsterdam University Medical Center (AUMC) in 2024-2025. Patients with an ocular prosthesis wore both a 3D-designed prosthesis and their conventional prosthesis. Outcomes included a validated quality-of-life questionnaire, eye-tracker–based motility assessment, and blinded professional and non-professional evaluations.

Results

Thirty-two participants were included. The CAD-based prosthesis scored 4.63 points higher than the conventional prosthesis on quality-of-care-and-life (out of a total of 70 points; p = 0.003). In the appearance domain, scores were 14.28 ± 2.44 for the 3D prosthesis versus 12.38 ± 2.99 for the conventional prosthesis (p < 0.001). Ocular motility was higher with the 3D printed prosthesis in all gaze directions, although differences were not statistically significant. Professional ratings averaged slightly above the neutral midpoint on a 0–10 scale with 5.90 ± 2.17 for cosmetic appearance (p < 0.001) and 5.28 ± 1.60 for motility (p = 0.033), both, indicating a modest preference for the 3D printed prosthesis. Non-professionals rated appearance at 5.80 ± 2.19 (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

In this study, CAD-based ocular prostheses were non-inferior to conventional prostheses, with slight preference for CAD-based prostheses for wearing comfort and cosmetic appearance. The CAD-based workflow appears promising for the reproducible fabrication of ocular prostheses and may improve accessibility to prosthetic care.

Additional Authors

↑ Back to top