NEW CEB AIR ESTHESIOMETER CLINICAL TRIAL: PRELIMINARY RESULTS ON HEALTHY PATIENTS.
Published 2023 - 27th ESCRS Winter Meeting
Reference: P139 | Type: Free Paper Submission | DOI: 10.82333/55cw-t735
Authors: Damian Garcia-Teillard* 1 , Salvador Garcia-Delpech 2 , J.M Benitez Del Castillo 3 , J. MERAYO 4 , J. Montero 5 , P. Udaondo 2 , Alex S. Fernández-Santodomingo 2 , N.M Moneo Coll 6
1OFTALMOLOGIA,HOSPITAL PUNTA DE EUROPA,ALGECIRAS,Spain, 2OFTALMOLOGIA,CLINICA AIKEN,VALENCIA,Spain, 3OFTALMOLOGIA,CLINICA REMENTERIA,MADRID,Spain, 4OFTALMOLOGIA,INSTITUTO OFTALMOLOGICO FERNANDEZ-VEGA,OVIEDO,Spain, 5OFTALMOLOGIA,CARTUJA VISION ,SEVILLA,Spain, 6INVESTIGACION ,FUNDACION AIKEN,VALENCIA,Spain
Purpose
To determine corneal sensitivity reference intervals in healthy corneas using CEB.
Setting
Many processes such as cataract surgery, LASIK surgery, or systemic diseases like Sjogren syndrome or Diabetes Mellitus are associated to corneal neuropathy, loss of corneal nerve bundles and dry eye disease. Measuring corneal sensitivity patients should be crucial for ophthalmologists as clinicians.
Esthesiometers help in assessing corneal sensitivity. Older esthesiometry devices are seen to report underestimated results, but new non-contact techniques have appeared, showing promising results.
Last edition we presented our first results carried on patients affected by different pathologies and healthy patients. We concluded that device’s pressure level had to be ranged towards lower values. Proposed changes applied, another study was carried, showing how newly stated parameters helped us differentiate amongst cases with a higher sensibility, and detect hypoesthesia. We now want to determine CEB corneal sensitivity reference intervals for healthy individuals.
Methods
Corneal sensitivity was measured in 26 healthy subjects (both eyes) The collected data came from a population of Healthy volunteers, applying the following exclusion criteria:
- Use of contact lenses
- Undergone refractive surgery
- Dry eye disease
- Clear color iris
The esthesiometer has 5 levels of stimuli, ranging from 4 mbar to 25 mbar for a surface of 0.4 mm in diameter. Measurements were carried with support on the Slit Lamp.
A sub-threshold esthesiometry strategy was used. Four esthesiometry tests were performed on each healthy volunteer on the same day: The first esthesiometry was performed on both eyes. In contrast, the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th were carried out on one randomized eye by two different investigators (intra- and inter-observer variability). The 4th esthesiometry was carried out after the application of topical ocular anesthesia.
Results
There were no significant differences between the two investigators' esthesiometry results. The esthesiometry results with CEB were not biased by the user.
For the 1st esthesiometry: 19.3% felt the air pulse at 2 mbar, 57.7% felt it at 4 mbar, and 23.1% at 5 mbar.
Mean pressure levels for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd esthesiometry before anaesthesia were 4 mbar.
After anesthesia instillation, 27% of the volunteers did not feel the air pulse at any level, and as expected, 46% felt the stimulus at high pressure levels (between 7-9 mbar).
Conclusion
Even though it is too early to draw definitive conclusions, from the above-mentioned preliminary data we could conclude that the mean pressure for corneal stimulation with CEB is 4mbar.
Results on eyes after administration of topical anesthesia show how hyposensitivity corneal pathologies would need higher levels of stimuli, as expected.
As said at the beginning, we are still conducting this trial, increasing the number of studied healthy individuals. It will be our pleasure to present new definitive results soon.