The study emphasized patients' concerns about the health of their remaining eye and their need for good advice at time of eye loss. Knowledge that their initial concerns about judging distance, reduced peripheral vision and appearance all decrease over time may help clinicians in counselling these patients. Watering, crusting and discharge was the chief present-day concern after health of the remaining eye.

No abstract

Purpose To evaluate morphological alterations of meibomian glands (MGs) in the dry anophthalmic socket syndrome (DASS). Methods Fifteen unilateral anophthalmic patients wearing cryolite glass prosthetic eyes were enrolled. All patients with clinical blepharitis or other significant eyelid abnormalities were excluded. In vivo laser scanning confocal microscopy (LSCM) of the MGs in the lower eyelids both on the anophthalmic side and the healthy fellow eye was performed to quantify acinar unit density, acinar unit diameter, acinar unit area, meibum secretion reflectivity, the inhomogeneous appearance of the glandular interstice, and inhomogeneous appearance of the acinar walls. Results The lower eyelids of the anophthalmic sockets revealed a significant reduction of the acinar unit density (p = 0.003) as well as a significantly more inhomogeneous appearance of the periglandular interstices (p = 0.018) and the acinar unit walls (p = 0.015) than the healthy fellow eyelid. However, there were no significant differences regarding the acinar unit diameter, acinar unit area, and meibum secretion reflectivity of the MGs on the anophthalmic side compared to the healthy fellow eyelid (p ≥ 0.05, respectively). Conclusions The eyelids of anophthalmic sockets without clinical blepharitis demonstrate a reduced density of MG acinar units and a more inhomogeneous appearance of the periglandular interstices and the acinar unit walls. This can cause meibomian gland dysfunction contributing to DASS and suggests early treatment of these symptomatic patients, even in the clinical absence of any blepharitis signs.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the inflammatory response of the anophthalmic socket to prosthetic eye wear. Methods: One hundred and two prosthetic eye wearers were recruited for this observational study. Photographic grading scales were used to measure the severity of conjunctival inflammation and the extent and intensity of stained deposits on the prosthetic eyes. Tear volume was measured with the phenol red thread test. For mucoid discharge, visual analogue scales were used to assess frequency of occurrence, colour, volume and viscosity. For the prostheses, assessments were made of weight, shape, wearing time and frequency of cleaning. Results: Anophthalmic sockets had more severe conjunctival inflammation than their companion eyes (p = 0.0001). The difference in inflammation between the companion eye and the anophthalmic socket was associated with discharge volume (p = 0.01) and discharge viscosity (p = 0.007) with greater difference in inflammation being associated with higher levels of discharge volume and viscosity. A greater difference in inflammation was also associated with less surface deposition (p = 0.009). No evidence of associations was found between difference in conjunctival inflammation and the other variables. Conclusions: Recently developed grading scales for measuring inflammation in anophthalmic sockets and deposits on prosthetic eyes were used for the first time in this study. It is recommended that in clinical practice, inflammation grades for both socket and companion eye conjunctivae be compared, when determining if prosthesis-induced inflammation is present. The finding that more discharge was associated with more conjunctival inflammation is logical but the finding that less inflammation was associated with more deposits is counter-intuitive to those familiar with the contact lens literature. The apparently benign nature of at least some deposits on the prostheses raises questions about the maintenance of prosthetic eyes. We conclude that the simple presence of deposits is unlikely to be linked with inflammation of the conjunctiva in wearers of prostheses, who like those in this study, cleaned their prostheses regularly but not frequently.

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.