Management of external ocular prosthesis by ocularists: results of an online survey conducted in Brazil and Spain.

Purpose: 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). Conclusion: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]