Corneal Sensitivity with the Non-contact Esthesiometer as Compared to the Cotton Wisp Test in Patients with Ocular Surface Diseases

非接触式角膜感觉计与棉签法在眼表疾病患者角膜敏感度测试中的比较

阅读:3

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Intact corneal sensation plays a vital role in maintaining ocular surface health. Various ocular surface pathologies can present with differing levels of decreased corneal sensation, while in some cases patients may instead experience heightened sensation. This study compared corneal sensitivity with the new quantitative non-contact esthesiometer (NCE, Brill, USA) and the conventional qualitative cotton wisp (CW) test in patients with ocular surface diseases (OSD). METHODS: A retrospective, cross-sectional study was conducted, including patients with OSDs, who had both CW and NCE test results available. Descriptive analysis of one eye per patient was performed to compare the distribution of patients according to NCE and CW responses. RESULTS: Of 139 eyes (n = 139 patients), 129 (92.8%) were CW+ and 10 eyes were CW- (7.2%). Among these, 111 eyes responded to levels 1-3 when assessed with NCE, with 38 (34.2%) responding to level 1, 45 (40.5%) to level 2, and 28 (25.2%) to level 3. However, of CW+ eyes, 10 (7.8%) responded to level 4 and 6 (4.7%) responded to level 5 of NCE, while 2 (1.6%) had no response to any NCE stimulation (i.e., level 6), indicating varying degrees of hyposensitivity not detected by CW. Of the 10 eyes (7.2%) that did not respond to CW (CW-), 3 responded to level 4, and one to level 5 of NCE, while 4 eyes (40.0%) failed to respond to NCE (level 6). Notably, two CW- patients responded to level 1 NCE, suggesting potential hypersensitivity. Results showed high sensitivity (98.2%, 95% CI 93.8-99.8%) but low specificity (30.8%, 95% CI 14.3-51.8%) of the CW test in patients with OSD when level 4 of NCE (i.e., levels 4, 5, and 6) was used as the cutoff for defining corneal hyposensitivity. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that the low specificity of the qualitative CW test, combined with a broad confidence interval, indicates a high likelihood of false-positive results. This suggests that a positive CW test may not reliably rule out hyposensitivity, underscoring the need for further evaluation in the setting of a positive CW test result.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。