4.6 Article

Eyelid Pressure and Contact with the Ocular Surface

Journal

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
Volume 51, Issue 4, Pages 1911-1917

Publisher

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.09-4090

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE. To investigate static upper eyelid pressure and contact with the ocular surface in a group of young adult subjects. METHODS. Static upper eyelid pressure was measured for 11 subjects using a piezoresistive pressure sensor attached to a rigid contact lens. Measures of eyelid pressure were derived from an active pressure cell (1.14-mm square) beneath the central upper eyelid margin. To investigate the contact region between the upper eyelid and the ocular surface, the authors used pressure-sensitive paper and the lissamine-green staining of Marx's line. These measures, combined with the pressure sensor readings, were used to derive estimates of eyelid pressure. RESULTS. The mean contact width between the eyelids and the ocular surface estimated using pressure-sensitive paper was 0.60 +/- 0.16 mm, whereas the mean width of Marx's line was 0.09 +/- 0.02 mm. The mean central upper eyelid pressure was calculated to be 3.8 +/- 0.7 mm Hg (assuming that the whole pressure cell was loaded), 8.0 +/- 3.4 mm Hg (derived using the pressure-sensitive paper imprint widths), and 55 +/- 26 mm Hg (based on contact widths equivalent to Marx's line). CONCLUSIONS. The pressure-sensitive paper measurements suggested that a band of the eyelid margin, significantly larger than the anatomic zone of the eyelid margin known as Marx's line, had primary contact with the ocular surface. Using these measurements as the contact between the eyelid margin and the ocular surface, the authors believe that the mean pressure of 8.0 +/- 3.4 mm Hg is the most reliable estimate of static upper eyelid pressure. (Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010; 51:1911-1917) DOI: 10.1167/iovs.09-4090

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available