Aims To compare the unique experiences related to artificial eye (AE) versus cosmetic shell (CS) wear.
Methods In this observational, cross-sectional study, the National Artificial Eye Questionnaire was employed nationwide within the National Health Service England. This second part of the study assesses daily management and care experiences, as well as visual function and quality of life aspects.
Results Overall, 951 respondents wore an AE, while 238 wore a CS. Both AE and CS respondents rated a relatively high score for a beneficial effect of prosthesis polishing, with an average score of 80.08±0.87 versus 77.17±1.73 (p=0.13, respectively). CS respondents removed and cleaned their prosthesis more frequently than AE respondents (p<0.0001, p=0.002, respectively). CS respondents instilled lubrication more frequently than AE respondents (p=0.022) with 33.3% versus 43.7% of AE and CS wearers, respectively, lubricating on at least a daily basis. The overall QOL composite score was similar in both AE and CS groups (approximately 77%, p=0.74). Social functioning was similar, and relatively high in both groups (approximately 86%, p=0.77).
Conclusions This study characterises unique aspects of CSs versus AEs in a large national cohort. The results should provide reinforcement to the gain in popularity of CSs.
- treatment other
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors KU: analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of manuscript and critical revision. EW: conception or design of the work, acquisition of data, drafting of manuscript and critical revision. YS: analysis and interpretation of data and critical revision. AL and RM: conception or design of the work, analysis and interpretation of data and critical revision.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement Data are available upon reasonable request. All completed National Artificial Eye Questionnaires (NAEQ) were collected to one central location (Queen Victoria Hospital, East Grinstead). Questionnaires were anonymised and allocated a unique identifier. Data obtained from the NAEQ were entered onto an anonymised database saved on the secured hospital network. The raw data may be provided upon reasonable request.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.