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 Busra
dc.contributor.authorOzkan, Esma Ecem Ersoy
dc.contributor.authorMangan, Mehmet Serhat
dc.contributor.authorOguz, Halit
dc.date.accessioned2025-11-16T19:34:09Z
dc.date.issued2025
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.
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/ICL.0000000000001162
dc.identifier.endpagee148
dc.identifier.issn1542-2321
dc.identifier.issn1542-233X
dc.identifier.issue3
dc.identifier.pmid39787435
dc.identifier.startpagee142
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0000000000001162
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14730/15248
dc.identifier.volume51
dc.identifier.wosWOS:001432230300001
dc.identifier.wosqualityN/A
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherLippincott Williams & Wilkins
dc.relation.ispartofEye & Contact Lens-Science And Clinical Practice
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.snmzKA_WOS_20250302
dc.subjectOcular cosmetic rehabilitation
dc.subjectCorneal tattoo/keratopigmentation
dc.subjectAnophthalmic surgery
dc.subjectOcular prosthesis
dc.titleComparative Analysis of Cosmetic and Functional Outcomes in Corneal Tattooing (Keratopigmentation) versus Ocular Prosthesis
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar