目的：分析眼科医生对无眼腔和眼外假体（EOP）管理的看法。
方法：邀请来自两个国家的Ocularists参加在线问卷调查。收集了人口统计数据，眼科插座和EOP管理(制造，使用,cleaning),并发症,后续访问和多学科护理。对反应的频率和比例进行统计分析。
结果：问卷发给了20名巴西和17名西班牙眼科医生，获得65%和64.7%的反应率，分别。62.5%的受访者是男性。在巴西（69.2％）和西班牙（36.4％），无眼症的最常见原因是眼病（卡方：p=0.188）。聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯（PMMA）是EOP制造中最常用的材料（卡方：p=0.448），70.8%报告使用定制的EOP(卡方：p=0.069)。在这两个国家经常观察到存款(卡方:p=0.157)。巴西眼科医生建议在5到10年后更换假体，西班牙眼科医生使用不到5年(81.8%)(卡方:p=0.041)。西班牙眼科医师建议每年随访（45.5%），巴西眼科医师建议进行半祖先（38.5％）和病例依赖性（38.5％）随访（卡方：p=0.267）。61.5%的巴西眼科医生提倡每日清洁，45.5%的西班牙眼科医生提倡每月清洁一次(卡方:p=0.098)，来自这两个国家的75％的眼科医生不建议在夜间去除EOP（Fisher精确检验：p=0.166）。我们的响应者中有87.5％报告了眼科医生和眼科医生之间的良好沟通（卡方：p=0.642）。
结论：尽管没有关于EOP管理的统一协议，巴西和西班牙的眼科医生遵循类似的指导方针。国家之间的差异是患者的转诊和假体的使用寿命。
OBJECTIVE: To analyse the
ocularist\'s perspective on the management of the anophthalmic socket and external ocular prosthesis (EOP).
METHODS: Ocularists from two countries were invited to participate in an online questionnaire. Data were collected on demographics, anophthalmic socket and EOP management (manufacturing, use, cleaning), complications, follow-up visits and multidisciplinary care. The frequency and proportions of the responses were statistically analysed.
RESULTS: The questionnaire was addressed to 20 Brazilian and 17 Spanish ocularists, obtaining a response rate of 65% and 64.7%, respectively. 62.5% of respondents were men. The most common cause of anophthalmia in Brazil (69.2%) and Spain (36.4%) is an eye disease (chi square: p = 0.188). Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) is the most commonly used material in EOP manufacture (chi square: p = 0.448), and 70.8% reported using customized EOPs (chi square: p = 0.069). Deposits are frequently observed in both countries (chi square: p = 0.157). Changing the prosthesis is recommended after 5 to 10 years by Brazilian ocularists, and after less than 5 years of use by Spanish ocularists (81.8%) (chi square: p = 0.041). Annual follow-up is recommended by Spanish ocularists (45.5%), while semestral (38.5%) and case-dependent (38.5%) follow-up is recommended by Brazilian ocularists (chi square: p = 0.267). Daily cleaning is advocated by 61.5% of Brazilian ocularists and once a month by 45.5% of Spanish ocularists (chi square: p = 0.098), with 75% of ocularists from both countries not recommending EOP removal at night (Fisher´s exact test: p = 0.166). Good communication between ocularists and ophthalmologists was reported by 87.5% of our responders (chi square: p = 0.642).
CONCLUSIONS: Although there are no unified protocols on the management of EOPs, Brazilian and Spanish ocularists follow similar guidelines. Differences between countries were the patients´ referral and the prosthesis´ useful life.
PDF(Pubmed)