Comparative Analysis of Cosmetic and Functional Outcomes in Corneal Tattooing (Keratopigmentation) versus Ocular Prosthesis

dc.contributor.authorDurmus, Ebubekir
dc.contributor.authorYilmaz, Omer Faruk
dc.contributor.authorSahin, Zahide Büsra
dc.contributor.authorOzkan, Esma Ecem Ersoy
dc.contributor.authorMangan, Mehmet Serhat
dc.contributor.authorOğuz, Halit
dc.date.accessioned2025-05-10T15:21:54Z
dc.date.issued2024
dc.departmentİstanbul Medeniyet Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractObjectives: This study compares the cosmetic and functional outcomes of corneal tattooing/keratopigmentation and ocular prostheses in rehabilitating disfigured eyes, focusing on esthetic appearance and emotional well-being. Methods: Ninety-two patients were included: 48 received corneal tattooing, and 44 were fitted with ocular prostheses. Anophthalmic surgery was indicated for trauma, painful blind eye, endophthalmitis, tumor, and corneal ulcer, while corneal tattooing was performed for trauma, corneal ulcer, and endophthalmitis. Comprehensive ophthalmic examinations, a seven-item satisfaction questionnaire, and assessments of ocular movement in four directions and postoperative complications (e.g., infection, enophthalmos, fornix loss, and eyelid disorders) were conducted. Results: Patients who underwent ocular cosmetic rehabilitation reported high satisfaction, with corneal tattooing yielding higher satisfaction rates across all measures (P,0.001). Patients with corneal tattooing exhibited significantly better ocular movement in all four cardinal directions (P,0.001 for temporal, nasal, superior, and inferior). The prosthesis group experienced more postoperative complications, including ocular surface disorders and structural anomalies. Conclusion: Corneal tattooing and ocular prostheses both provide viable options for rehabilitating disfigured eyes. Corneal tattooing offers advantages in ocular movement, fewer complications, and higher patient satisfaction, while ocular prostheses are more suitable for addressing phthisis bulbi, tumors, and ocular pain. © 2024 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved.
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/ICL.0000000000001162
dc.identifier.issn1542-2321
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85214586051
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0000000000001162
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14730/6224
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherLippincott Williams and Wilkins
dc.relation.ispartofEye and Contact Lens
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.snmzKA_Scopus_20250302
dc.subjectOcular cosmetic rehabilitation—Corneal tattoo/ keratopigmentation—Anophthalmic surgery—Ocular prosthesis
dc.titleComparative Analysis of Cosmetic and Functional Outcomes in Corneal Tattooing (Keratopigmentation) versus Ocular Prosthesis
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar