Augenprothetische Rehabilitation in Deutschland heute – Versorgungsmöglichkeiten, Handhabung, Komplikationen und psychologische Aspekte

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund Eine adäquate Versorgung mit einer optisch ansprechenden Augenprothese nach dem Verlust eines Auges ist nicht nur aus rein kosmetischen Gründen essenziell, sondern erleichtert vor allem eine gute soziale und psychische Rehabilitation.

Fragestellung Es soll eine Übersicht über den aktuellen Stand der augenprothetischen Versorgung in Deutschland erstellt werden. Dabei wird auf die neuesten klinischen Erkenntnisse, die Handhabung der Augenprothesen sowie auf typische Komplikationen und psychologische Fragestellungen, mit denen Augenärzte im Alltag konfrontiert werden, eingegangen.

Methoden Der Beitrag bietet eigene klinische Ergebnisse und eine aktuelle Literaturübersicht aus PubMed.

Ergebnisse Enukleierte Patienten werden in Deutschland meist mit doppelwandigen, hohlen Prothesen aus Kryolithglas versorgt, Patienten mit einem Mikrophthalmus oder einem phthitischen Auge dagegen mit einer einwandigen, dünnen Bulbusschale. Patienten, die Augenprothesen aus Kryolithglas tragen, scheinen sowohl mit ihrem Aussehen als auch mit der Optik der Prothese zufriedener zu sein als PMMA-Augenprothesenträger (PMMA: Polymethylmethacrylat). Glasprothesen müssen mindestens jährlich erneuert, Kunststoffprothesen einmal pro Jahr poliert und alle 5 Jahre ersetzt werden. Bei Kindern, insbesondere in Wachstumsphasen, sollte mindestens halbjährlich die Passform der Prothese kontrolliert werden. Eine leicht höhere Bruchgefahr der Augenprothesen aus Kryolithglas stellt im Alltag für die meisten Patienten keinen größeren Nachteil dar. Okularisten und Ophthalmologen sollten zusammen mit dem Patienten ein individuelles Reinigungsprozedere festlegen, das sowohl vom Prothesenmaterial als auch von äußeren Faktoren abhängt. Komplikationen wie die allergische, die gigantopapilläre, die virale und die bakterielle Konjunktivitis oder auch die Blepharoconjunctivitis sicca müssen frühzeitig erkannt und therapiert werden, um die Prothesenfähigkeit zu erhalten. Bei entzündungsbedingtem Schrumpfungen des Bindehautsackes oder beim Post-Enukleations-Socket-Syndrom muss die Prothesenfähigkeit chirurgisch wiederhergestellt werden. Da die Gesundheit des verbliebenen, sehenden Auges die größte psychologische Belastung von Augenprothesenträgern darstellt, ist eine gute augenärztliche Betreuung, Für- und Vorsorge nach der Exstirpation eines Auges essenziell.

Schlussfolgerungen Eine reibungslose augenprothetische Versorgung, eine adäquate und frühzeitige Therapie möglicher Komplikationen sowie die Berücksichtigung psychologischer Aspekte sind maßgeblich, um Patienten nach dem Verlust eines Auges dauerhaft erfolgreich zu rehabilitieren.

Abstract

Background A smooth supply with a visually appealing prosthetic eye after enucleation is not just a cosmetic solution, it is also a key factor in successful social and psychological rehabilitation.

Objectives This article provides an overview of the current state of medical and ocular care regarding prosthetic eyes in Germany. It focuses mainly on the newest clinical results, daily care, complications, and psychological aspects of wearing prosthetic eyes.

Methods The study is comprised of the newest clinical results and a current PubMed literature review.

Results In Germany, enucleated patients normally get a double-walled, hollow prosthetic eye made of cryolite glass, and patients with a microphthalmic or phthisic eye receive a thin single-walled prosthesis. Anophthalmic patients wearing cryolite glass prosthetic eyes seem to be more satisfied with their appearance and the look of their prostheses than polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) prosthetic eye wearers. Cryolite glass prosthetic eyes must be renewed at least each year, while PMMA prostheses need to be polished once a year and renewed after five years of wearing. Among children, the fit of the prosthetic eye must be checked, based on growth, semi-annually. A slightly higher risk of breakage of cryolite glass prostheses is, for most patients, not a great disadvantage in everyday life. Ocularists and ophthalmologists should determine an individual cleaning regime, together with the patient, that is dependent on the material of the ocular prosthesis and other external factors. Complications, such as allergic, giant papillary, viral and bacterial conjunctivitis and blepharoconjunctivitis sicca must be treated at an early stage to allow for a prosthetic eye. In the case of inflammation-caused socket shrinkage or post-enucleation socket syndrome, surgical interventions are needed to re-enable the use of a prosthetic eye. Since the health of the remaining eye is the major psychological burden of prosthetic eye wearers, good ophthalmological care and medical screenings are essential elements.

Conclusions A smooth supply with a prosthetic eye, adequate and early treatment of possible complications and attention to psychological aspects is essential for successful long-term rehabilitation of enucleated patients.

Schlüsselwörter

Enukleation - Anophthalmie - Kunstauge - Augenprothese - Kryolithglas

Key words

enucleation - anophthalmia - prosthetic eye - ocular prosthesis - cryolite glass

• Literatur

• 1 de Gottrau P, Holbach LM, Naumann GO. Clinicopathological review of 1146 enucleations (1980–90). Br J Ophthalmol 1994; 78: 260-265
• 2 Koch KR, Trester W, Müller-Uri N. et al. [Ocular prosthetics. Fitting, daily use and complications]. Ophthalmologe 2016; 113: 133-142 doi:10.1007/s00347-015-0091-x
• 3 Rokohl AC, Koch KR, Trester M. et al. Concerns of anophthalmic patients wearing cryolite glass prosthetic eyes. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 34: 369-374 doi:10.1097/IOP.0000000000001021
• 4 Rokohl AC, Koch KR, Adler W. et al. Concerns of anophthalmic patients – a comparison between cryolite glass and polymethyl methacrylate prosthetic eye wearers. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2018; 256: 1203-1208 doi:10.1007/s00417-018-3942-8
• 5 Bohman E, Roed Rassmusen ML, Kopp ED. Pain and discomfort in the anophthalmic socket. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2014; 25: 455-460 doi:10.1097/ICU.0000000000000069
• 6 Pine NS, de Terte I, Pine KR. The impact of eye loss and prosthetic eye wear on recreational, occupational and social areas of functioning. J Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2017; 2: 1016
• 7 Pine NS, de Terte I, Pine KR. et al. Time heals: an investigation into how anophthalmic patients feel about eye loss and wearing a prosthetic eye. J Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2017; 2: 1018
• 8 Chin K, Margolin CB, Finger PT. Early ocular prosthesis insertion improves quality of life after enucleation. Optometry 2006; 77: 71-75 doi:10.1016/j.optm.2005.12.012
• 9 Pine K, Sloan B, Stewart J. et al. Concerns of anophthalmic patients wearing artificial eyes. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2011; 39: 47-52 doi:10.1111/j.1442-9071.2010.02381.x
• 10 Pine NS, de Terte I, Pine KR. An investigation into discharge, visual perception, and appearance concerns of prosthetic eye wearers. Orbit 2017; 36: 401-406 doi:10.1080/01676830.2017.1337201
• 11 Hughes MO, Hughes N. Visual field deficits after eye loss: what do monocular patients (not) see?. Insight 2015; 40: 11-17
• 12 Hintschich C, Baldeschi L. [Rehabilitation of anophthalmic patients. Results of a survey]. Ophthalmologe 2001; 98: 74-80
• 13 Thiesmann R, Anagnostopoulos A, Stemplewitz B. [Long-term results of the compatibility of a coralline hydroxyapatite implant as eye replacement]. Ophthalmologe 2018; 115: 131-136 doi:10.1007/s00347-017-0444-8
• 14 Pine K, Sloan B, Stewart J. et al. A survey of prosthetic eye wearers to investigate mucoid discharge. Clin Ophthalmol 2012; 6: 707-713 doi:10.2147/OPTH.S31126
• 15 Pine KR, Sloan B, Jacobs RJ. Deposit buildup on prosthetic eyes and implications for conjunctival inflammation and mucoid discharge. Clin Ophthalmol 2012; 6: 1755-1762 doi:10.2147/OPTH.S37250
• 16 Pine KR, Sloan BH, Jacobs RJ. A proposed model of the response of the anophthalmic socket to prosthetic eye wear and its application to the management of mucoid discharge. Med Hypotheses 2013; 81: 300-305 doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2013.04.024
• 17 Pine KR, Sloan B, Stewart J. et al. The response of the anophthalmic socket to prosthetic eye wear. Clin Exp Optom 2013; 96: 388-393 doi:10.1111/cxo.12004
• 18 Rokohl AC, Koch KR, Trester M. et al. [Cryolite glass ocular prostheses and coralline hydroxyapatite implants for eye replacement following enucleation]. Ophthalmologe 2018; 115: 793-794 doi:10.1007/s00347-018-0726-9
• 19 Cleres B, Meyer-Rüsenberg HW. [Porous orbital implants]. Ophthalmologe 2014; 111: 572-576 doi:10.1007/s00347-013-2950-7
• 20 Norda AG, Meyer-Rüsenberg HW. [Experience with orbital implants in particular with porous hydroxyapatite materials]. Ophthalmologe 2003; 100: 437-444 doi:10.1007/s00347-003-0832-0
• 21 Norda AG, Meyer-Rüsenberg HW. [Long-term results of implantation of hydroxylapatite as artificial eye]. Ophthalmologe 2000; 97: 91-99
• 22 Wladis EJ, Aakalu VK, Sobel RK. et al. Orbital implants in enucleation surgery: a report by the American academy of ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 2018; 125: 311-317 doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.08.006
• 23 Busin M, Monks T, Menzel C. [Orbital implants of coralline hydroxyapatite as eye replacement after enucleation]. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 1994; 204: 518-522 doi:10.1055/s-2008-1045476
• 24 Li T, Shen J, Duffy MT. Exposure rates of wrapped and unwrapped orbital implants following enucleation. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 2001; 17: 431-435
• 25 Meyer-Rüsenberg HW, Kasperski S, Althoff R. [Sclera silicone implants of the orbit]. Fortschr Ophthalmol 1983; 79: 555-556
• 26 Jordan DR. Porous versus nonporous orbital implants: a 25-year retrospective. Ophthalmology 2018; 125: 1317-1319 doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.03.055
• 27 Maskey B, Mathema SRB, Shrestha K. et al. A simplified approach to fabricate a hollow ocular prosthesis. J Prosthodont 2018;
• 28 Kavlekar AA, Aras MA, Chitre V. An innovative and simple approach to fabricate a hollow ocular prosthesis with functional lubricant reservoir: a solution to artificial eye comfort. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2017; 17: 196-202 doi:10.4103/0972-4052.194946
• 29 Cote RE, Haddad SE. Fitting a prosthesis over phthisis bulbi or discolored blind eyes. Adv Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 1990; 8: 136-145
• 30 Keserü M, Große Darrelmann B, Green S. et al. [Post enucleation socket syndrome – new and established surgical solutions]. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 2015; 232: 40-43 doi:10.1055/s-0034-1396140
• 31 Spraul CW, Roth HJ, Baumert SE. et al. [Motif expressing soft print lenses. Effect on visual function]. Ophthalmologe 1999; 96: 30-33
• 32 Justusová P, Štubňa M, Veselovský M. et al. [Orbital exenteration in patient with metastatic choroidal melanoma – a case report]. Cesk Slov Oftalmol 2016; 72: 92-96
• 33 Baino F, Perero S, Ferraris S. et al. Biomaterials for orbital implants and ocular prostheses: overview and future prospects. Acta Biomater 2014; 10: 1064-1087 doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2013.12.014
• 34 Goiato MC, Bannwart LC, Haddad MF. et al. Fabrication techniques for ocular prostheses – an overview. Orbit 2014; 33: 229-233 doi:10.3109/01676830.2014.881395
• 35 Härting F, Flörke OW, Bornfeld N. et al. [Surface changes in glass eye prostheses]. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 1984; 185: 272-275 doi:10.1055/s-2008-1054613
• 36 Dos Santos DM, Andreotti AM, Iyda BG. et al. Expander eye prosthesis assisting ocular rehabilitation in child with eye loss. J Clin Diagn Res 2017; 11: ZD06-ZD08 doi:10.7860/JCDR/2017/26859.10511
• 37 Shaikh SR, Gangurde AP, Shambharkar VI. Changing ocular prostheses in growing children: a 5-year follow-up clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 111: 346-348 doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.09.021
• 38 Bailey CS, Buckley RJ. Ocular prostheses and contact lenses. I – Cosmetic devices. BMJ 1991; 302: 1010-1012
• 39 Pine KR, Sloan B, Han KI. et al. Deposit buildup on prosthetic eye material (in vitro) and its effect on surface wettability. Clin Ophthalmol 2013; 7: 313-319 doi:10.2147/OPTH.S40680
• 40 Jones CA, Collin JR. A classification and review the causes of discharging sockets. Trans Ophthalmol Soc U K 1983; 103: 351-353
• 41 Toribio A, Marrodan T, Fernandez-Natal I. et al. Study of conjunctival flora in anophthalmic patients: influence on the comfort of the socket. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2017; 255: 1669-1679 doi:10.1007/s00417-017-3708-8
• 42 Osborn KL, Hettler D. A survey of recommendations on the care of ocular prostheses. Optometry 2010; 81: 142-145 doi:10.1016/j.optm.2009.11.003
• 43 Fett DR, Scott R, Putterman AM. Evaluation of lubricants for the prosthetic eye wearer. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 1986; 2: 29-31
• 44 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
• 45 Ko JS, Seo Y, Chae MK. et al. Effect of topical loteprednol etabonate with lid hygiene on tear cytokines and meibomian gland dysfunction in prosthetic eye wearers. Eye (Lond) 2018; 32: 439-445 doi:10.1038/eye.2017.213
• 46 Noble RI, Hill JC, Webb C. The dry socket – a new lubricant (safflower oil). Can J Ophthalmol 1973; 8: 59-62
• 47 Litwin AS, Worrell E, Roos JC. et al. Can we improve the tolerance of an ocular prosthesis by enhancing its surface finish?. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 34: 130-135 doi:10.1097/IOP.0000000000000891
• 48 Allen L, Kolder HE, Bulgarelli EM. et al. Artificial eyes and tear measurements. Ophthalmology 1980; 87: 155-157
• 49 Bozkurt B, Akyurek N, Irkec M. et al. Immunohistochemical findings in prosthesis-associated giant papillary conjunctivitis. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2007; 35: 535-540 doi:10.1111/j.1442-9071.2007.01545.x
• 50 Meisler DM, Krachmer JH, Goeken JA. An immunopathologic study of giant papillary conjunctivitis associated with an ocular prosthesis. Am J Ophthalmol 1981; 92: 368-371
• 51 Patel V, Allen D, Morley AM. et al. Features and management of an acute allergic response to acrylic ocular prostheses. Orbit 2009; 28: 339-341 doi:10.3109/01676830903104660
• 52 Vasquez RJ, Linberg JV. The anophthalmic socket and the prosthetic eye. A clinical and bacteriologic study. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 1989; 5: 277-280
• 53 Christensen JN, Fahmy JA. The bacterial flora of the conjunctival anophthalmic socket in glass prosthesis-carriers. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1974; 52: 801-809
• 54 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 doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2009.10.023
• 55 Franca IS, Medrado J, Franca VP. et al. [Treatment of dry anophthalmic cavities with labial salivary glands transplantation]. Arq Bras Oftalmol 2011; 74: 425-429
• 56 Pine KR, Sloan BH, Jacobs RJ. Clinical ocular Prosthetics. Berlin: Springer; 2015
• 57 Swann PG. Giant papillary conjunctivitis associated with an ocular prosthesis. Clin Exp Optom 2001; 84: 293-295
• 58 Bilkhu P, Wolffsohn JS, Taylor D. et al. The management of ocular allergy in community pharmacies in the United Kingdom. Int J Clin Pharm 2013; 35: 190-194 doi:10.1007/s11096-012-9742-z
• 59 Srinivasan BD, Jakobiec FA, Iwamoto T. et al. Giant papillary conjunctivitis with ocular prostheses. Arch Ophthalmol 1979; 97: 892-895
• 60 Bischoff G. [Giant papillary conjunctivitis]. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 2014; 231: 518-521 doi:10.1055/s-0034-1368334
• 61 Quaranta-Leoni FM. Treatment of the anophthalmic socket. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2008; 19: 422-427 doi:10.1097/ICU.0b013e32830b1551
• 62 Ibrahiem MF, Abdelaziz ST. Shallow inferior conjunctival fornix in contracted socket and anophthalmic socket syndrome: a novel technique to deepen the fornix using fascia lata strips. J Ophthalmol 2016; 2016: 3857579 doi:10.1155/2016/3857579
• 63 Han JW, Yoon JS, Jang SY. Short-term effects of topical cyclosporine A 0.05 % (Restasis) in long-standing prosthetic eye wearers: a pilot study. Eye (Lond) 2014; 28: 1212-1217 doi:10.1038/eye.2014.174
• 64 [Anonymous] The definition and classification of dry eye disease: report of the Definition and Classification Subcommittee of the International Dry Eye Workshop. Ocul Surf 2007; 5: 75-92
• 65 Zhao H, Chen JY, Wang YQ. et al. In vivo confocal microscopy evaluation of Meibomian gland dysfunction in dry eye patients with different symptoms. Chin Med J (Engl) 2016; 129: 2617-2622 doi:10.4103/0366-6999.192782
• 66 Alhatem A, Cavalcanti B, Hamrah P. In vivo confocal microscopy in dry eye disease and related conditions. Semin Ophthalmol 2012; 27: 138-148 doi:10.3109/08820538.2012.711416
• 67 Colorado LH, Alzahrani Y, Pritchard N. et al. Time course of changes in goblet cell density in symptomatic and asymptomatic contact lens wearers. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2016; 57: 2888-2894 doi:10.1167/iovs.16-19298
• 68 Kim JH, Lee MJ, Choung HK. et al. Conjunctival cytologic features in anophthalmic patients wearing an ocular prosthesis. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 24: 290-295 doi:10.1097/IOP.0b013e3181788dff
• 69 Suzuki T, Teramukai S, Kinoshita S. Meibomian glands and ocular surface inflammation. Ocul Surf 2015; 13: 133-149 doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2014.12.002
• 70 Thode AR, Latkany RA. Current and emerging therapeutic strategies for the treatment of Meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD). Drugs 2015; 75: 1177-1185 doi:10.1007/s40265-015-0432-8
• 71 Hatt M. [Orbitoplasty in patients with artificial eyes]. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 1992; 200: 424-427 doi:10.1055/s-2008-1045783
• 72 Kwitko GM, Patel BC. Blepharoplasty, Ptosis Surgery. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2018. Im Internet: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482296/ Stand: 25.04.2018
• 73 Kim SS, Kawamoto HK, Kohan E. et al. Reconstruction of the irradiated orbit with autogenous fat grafting for improved ocular implant. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 126: 213-220 doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181dbc0c7
• 74 Neimkin MG, Custer PL. Compliance with protective lens wear in anophthalmic patients. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 33: 61-64 doi:10.1097/IOP.0000000000000652