ArticleInternational ophthalmology2026
Does the material of the external ocular prosthesis matter? Clinical outcomes after enucleation with orbital implantation.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe influence of ocular prosthesis material and patient-related factors on clinical outcomes following enucleation with orbital implantation remains insufficiently characterized. This study evaluated clinical outcomes in relation to external ocular prosthesis material, age, and gender.
methodsThis cross-sectional study included 58 patients who underwent enucleation with orbital implantation. Acrylic prostheses were used in 19 patients (32,6%), while 39 (67,4%) used glass prostheses. Subjective evaluation was based on a 4-item questionnaire assessing patient-reported postoperative outcomes. Objective assessment used a 4-point scale to evaluate upper eyelid sulcus symmetry, color matching, prosthetic motility, and eyelid position and was conducted by investigators.
resultsPatients using glass prostheses demonstrated better objective clinical outcomes than those using acrylic prostheses in the unadjusted analysis (p = 0.038). However, this association was no longer significant after adjustment for age, gender, and time since enucleation (p = 0.058). Objective clinical outcomes were rated lower than patients' subjective assessments (p = 0.004). Older patients reported higher subjective ratings than younger individuals (p = 0.001), and their subjective assessments exceeded objective evaluations (p < 0.001). In the adjusted analysis, younger age (18-49 years) remained the only independent predictor of lower subjective assessment scores (p = 0.002).
conclusionsBoth glass and acrylic ocular prostheses were rated favorably by patients. Prosthesis material was not an independent predictor of objective or subjective outcomes after adjustment for age, gender, and time since enucleation. Patients tended to rate outcomes more favorably than clinicians, particularly in older age groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.