PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Abstract
Purpose
To evaluate the preferred eyelid height and laterality according to differences in marginal reflex distance 1 (MRD1) in Korean patients with an ocular prosthesis.
Methods
A study of 46 eyes was conducted for patients with an ocular prosthesis between August 2016 and March 2018. In a slide show with the original and mirror-reversed photographs and upper eyelid height 1 mm above and below the base level, patients were asked which of the photographs of themselves they preferred.
Results
Patients divided evenly into 23 individuals with a right side ocular prosthesis and 23 individuals with a left side ocular prosthesis. Among the patients, 47.8% preferred the mirror-reversed photograph and 52.2% preferred the original photograph. Meanwhile, 67.4% with the left side ocular prosthesis preferred the original photograph and 32.6% with the right side ocular prosthesis preferred the original photograph (p = 0.02). Additionally, 69.3% preferred their upper eyelid height 1 mm above the original photograph, 21.7% preferred their upper eyelid height 1 mm below the original photograph, and 13.0% preferred the level of the original photograph (p < 0.01). Twenty-five patients had < 1 mm difference of MRD1 (group A). Sixteen patients had 1 mm smaller MRD1 with an ocular prosthesis than with a normal eye (group B). Five patients had 1 mm larger MRD1 with an ocular prosthesis than with a normal eye (group C). Group A and B patients preferred the photograph with their upper eyelid 1 mm above from the original photograph (p < 0.01).
Conclusions
Patients with an ocular prosthesis significantly preferred the photograph of their upper eyelid height 1 mm above the base level when the height of the ocular prosthesis was smaller or similar to the normal eye. And patients preferred the photographs with left sided prosthesis regardless of their original direction.
Figures and Tables
Figure 1
Laterality of a patient with a left ocular prosthesis. (A) Original photograph. (B) Mirror-reversed copy.
Figure 2
Upper eyelid height of a patient with a left ocular prosthesis. (A) Original photograph. (B) Upper eyelid height 1 mm up photograph. (C) Upper eyelid height 1 mm down photograph.
Table 3
Preferences of the ocular prosthesis patients for upper lid height on photographs according to difference of MRD1 between ocular prosthesis eye and normal eye
Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation or number (%).
Gruop A means difference of MRD1 ≤ 1 mm. Group B means MRD1 of ocular prosthesis was 1 mm smaller than MRD1 of normal eye, and Group C means MRD1 of ocular prosthesis was 1 mm larger than MRD1 of normal eye.
MRD1 = marginal reflex distance 1.
*Statistically significance is p < 0.05; chi-square test.
Table 4
Investigation of quality of life in ocular prosthesis patients
Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation or number. No problem means 1 point. Mild problem means 2 point. Severe problem means 3 point. Gruop A means difference of MRD1 ≤ 1 mm. Group B means MRD1 of ocular prosthesis was 1 mm smaller than MRD1 of normal eye. Group C means MRD1 of ocular prosthesis was 1 mm larger than MRD1 of normal eye.
MRD1 = marginal reflex distance 1.
*Statistically significance is p < 0.05; chi-square test.
Notes
References
1. Brady N, Campbell M, Flaherty M. My left brain and me: a dissociation in the perception of self and others. Neuropsychologia. 2004; 42:1156–1161.
2. Seyama J, Nagayama RS. Can mirroring reveal image distortion? Illusory distortion induced by mirroring. Psychol Res. 2006; 70:143–150.
3. Mombaerts I, Missotten L. The patient with an ocular prosthesis and his mirror image. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011; 27:343–347.
4. Mita TH, Dermer M, Knight J. Reversed facial images and the mere-exposure hypothesis. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1977; 35:597–601.
5. Rhodes G. Memory for lateral asymmetries in well-known faces: evidence for configural information in memory representations of faces. Mem Cognit. 1986; 14:209–219.
6. Manzone D, Loria T, Tremblay L. I spy with my dominant eye. J Mot Behav. 2018; 50:330–342.
7. Kawata H, Ohtsuka K. Dynamic asymmetries in convergence eye movements under natural viewing conditions. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2001; 45:437–444.
8. Feng CS, Yi K. Research on the quality of life of glaucoma patients. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2014; 55:1868–1877.
9. Lee JY, Cho HK, Kee C. Assessment of the vision-specific quality of life using binocular esterman visual field in glaucoma patients. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2013; 54:1567–1572.
10. Mangione CM, Phillips RS, Lawrence MG, et al. Improved visual function and attenuation of declines in health-related quality of life after cataract extraction. Arch Ophthalmol. 1994; 112:1419–1425.
11. Rim HT, Lee DM, Chung EJ. Visual acuity and quality of life: KNHANES IV. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2013; 54:46–52.
12. Kim JT, Moon NJ. Research on the quality of life of low vision patients. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2007; 48:1269–1275.
13. Kim SH, Choo HG, Yoon IN. Quality of life and visual efficiency: fifth Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2016; 57:485–491.
14. Burt DM, Perrett DI. Perceptual asymmetries in judgements of facial attractiveness, age, gender, speech and expression. Neuropsychologia. 1997; 35:685–693.
15. Reis VA, Zaidel DW. Functional asymmetry in the human face: perception of health in the left and right sides of the face. Laterality. 2001; 6:225–231.
16. Mombaerts I, Groet E. Upper eyelid ptosis surgery using a preparatory ocular prosthesis. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009; 25:90–93.
17. Eo DR, Kim YD, Woo KI. Surgical rehabilitation for anophthalmic sockets devoid of orbital implant. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017; 45:672–677.
18. Kim JY, Kim YD. Changes in eyelid height with time after levator resection under local anesthesia. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2007; 48:1303–1311.
19. Lee JY. A statistical study on the corneal diameters in Korean. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1983; 24:53–58.
20. Kondo T, Tillman WT, Schwartz TL, et al. Health-related quality of life after surgical removal of an eye. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013; 29:51–56.
21. Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001; 33:337–343.
22. Sullivan PW, Ghushchyan V. Preference-based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Decis Making. 2006; 26:410–420.
23. Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 2004; 13:873–884.
XML Download