The UK National Artificial Eye Questionnaire Study: predictors of artificial eye wearers' experience Part 2 - visual function and quality of life.
Journal
Eye (London, England)
ISSN: 1476-5454
Titre abrégé: Eye (Lond)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8703986
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2022
01 2022
Historique:
received:
29
05
2020
accepted:
04
02
2021
revised:
18
01
2021
pubmed:
3
3
2021
medline:
16
4
2022
entrez:
2
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To report associations with visual function and quality of life (QOL) in artificial eye wearers. Multicentre, observational, cross-sectional, nationwide study, within the National Health Service England. Items were adopted from the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire, and incorporated in the National Artificial Eye Questionnaire (NAEQ). The NAEQ was completed by 951 respondents. Multiple regressions assessed associations between the QOL scores and the experiences of artificial eye wearers, their routine management, changes over time, baseline and demographic parameters. Parameters predictive of a better QOL composite score included longer artificial eye wear (β = 0.18, p < 0.001), better appearance (β = 0.17, p < 0.001), better comfort (β = 0.14, p = 0.001), tumour-related anophthalmia (β = 0.13, p = 0.003), male gender (β = 0.13, p < 0.001), shorter period of adjustment to monocular vision (β = 0.12, p < 0.001) and use of soap for cleaning (β = 0.09, p = 0.046). The composite score continued to improve beyond 10 years of prosthesis wear (≤2 years mean 72.80 ± 1.65 versus >10 years mean 79.45 ± 0.70; p = 0.001). Both better prosthesis appearance (β = 0.14, p = 0.022) and improved motility (β = 0.13, p = 0.042) predicted a better dependency score. Use of lubricating ointment predicted a worse dependency score (β = 0.23, p = 0.003). Neither the frequency of removal, nor the cleaning frequency of the artificial eye correlated with QOL scales. Multiple factors in the artificial eye experience were found to predict visual function and QOL aspects. This study underscores the need to generate a dedicated QOL questionnaire for use in anophthalmic patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33649575
doi: 10.1038/s41433-021-01459-4
pii: 10.1038/s41433-021-01459-4
pmc: PMC8727567
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
140-147Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Royal College of Ophthalmologists.
Références
Ahn JM, Lee SY, Yoon JS. Health-related quality of life and emotional status of anophthalmic patients in Korea. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010;149:1005–11.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2009.12.036
Hatamleh MM, Alnazzawi AA, Abbariki M, Alqudah N, Cook AE. Survey of ocular prosthetics rehabilitation in the United Kingdom, Part 2: Anophthalmic patients’ satisfaction and acceptance. J Craniofac Surg. 2017;28:1297–301.
doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000003656
Pine K, Sloan B, Stewart J, Jacobs RJ. Concerns of anophthalmic patients wearing artificial eyes. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2011;39:47–52.
pubmed: 20662844
Pine NS, de Terte I, Pine KR. An investigation into discharge, visual perception, and appearance concerns of prosthetic eye wearers. Orbit 2017;36:401–6.
doi: 10.1080/01676830.2017.1337201
McBain HB, Ezra DG, Rose GE, Newman SP, Byron-Daniel J, Charlton R, et al. The psychosocial impact of living with an ocular prosthesis. Orbit 2014;33:39–44.
doi: 10.3109/01676830.2013.851251
Saxby E, Davies R, Kerr J. Living with an artificial eye—the emotional and psychosocial impact. Eye 2019;33:1349–51.
doi: 10.1038/s41433-019-0398-y
Mangione CM, Lee PP, Gutierrez PR, Spritzer K, Berry S, Hays RD. Development of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119:1050–8.
doi: 10.1001/archopht.119.7.1050
Shapira Y, Worrell E, Litwin AS, Malhotra R. The UK National Artificial Eye Questionnaire study: predictors of artificial eye wearers’ experience part 1—comfort and satisfaction. Eye. 2020. http://www.nature.com/articles/s41433-020-01236-9 .
Ihrig C, Schaefer DP. Acquired monocular vision rehabilitation program. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2007;44:593–7.
doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2006.06.0071
McLean M. Adapting to loss of an eye. B C Med J 2011;53:527.
Litwin AS, Worrell E, Roos JCP, Edwards B, Malhotra R. Can we improve the tolerance of an ocular prosthesis by enhancing its surface finish? Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;34:130–5.
doi: 10.1097/IOP.0000000000000891
Song JS, Oh J, Baek SH. A survey of satisfaction in anophthalmic patients wearing ocular prosthesis. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2006;244:330–5.
doi: 10.1007/s00417-005-0037-0
Vardizer Y, Lang Y, Mourits MP, Briscoe MD. Favorable effects of lacrimal plugs in patients with an anophthalmic socket. Orbit 2007;26:263–6.
doi: 10.1080/01676830600987557
Jang SY, Lee SY, Yoon JS. Meibomian gland dysfunction in longstanding prosthetic eye wearers. Br J Ophthalmol. 2013;97:398–402.
doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2012-302404
Kim SE, Yoon JS, Lee SY. Tear measurement in prosthetic eye users with fourier-domain optical coherence tomography. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010;149:602–607.e1.
Fett DR, Scott R, Putterman AM. Evaluation of lubricants for the prosthetic eye wearer. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg. 1986;2:29–31.
doi: 10.1097/00002341-198601040-00006
Bonaque-González S, Amigó A, Rodríguez-Luna C. Recommendations for post-adaption care of an ocular prosthesis: a review. Contact Lens Anterior Eye. 2015;38:397–401.
doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2015.06.003
Hatamleh MM, Abbariki M, Alqudah N, Cook AE. Survey of ocular prosthetics rehabilitation in the United Kingdom, Part 1: anophthalmic patients’ aetiology, opinions, and attitudes. J Craniofac Surg. 2017;28:1293–6.
doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000003370
NHS National Artificial Eye Service. Artificial Eye Care – NAES [Internet]. 2017. https://www.naes.nhs.uk/eye-care/artificial-eye-care/ .
Pine K, Sloan B, Stewart J, Jacobs RJ. A survey of prosthetic eye wearers to investigate mucoid discharge. Clin Ophthalmol. 2012;6:707–13.
pubmed: 22654496
pmcid: 3363311
Worrell E. Ocular prosthetic obturator: an innovative medical device. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014;98:862–4.
doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-304457
James H, Jenkinson E, Harrad R, Ezra DG, Newman S, Rumsey N, et al. Appearance concerns in ophthalmic patients. Eye 2011;25:1039–44.
doi: 10.1038/eye.2011.116