Vol 6 (2021): Continuous Publishing
Original paper
Published online: 2021-02-24

open access

Page views 6251
Article views/downloads 488
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

The inter-eye difference in corneal sensitivity in patients with infectious ulcers as measured with the Cochet-Bonnet esthesiometer

Ancy Chakko12, Bilto Babu23, Satheesh Solomon T Selvin2
Ophthalmol J 2021;6:31-37.

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to quantify the inter-eye difference in corneal sensations in patients with infectious corneal ulcers using the Cochet-Bonnet esthesiometer (CBE).

Material and methods: Patients with unilateral corneal ulcers of at least 1.5 mm of the clear cornea in all quadrants meeting the study criteria were identified and enrolled. The clinical features with their etiologies were noted. The corneal sensations were measured with CBE in all four quadrants. Patients were further sub-categorized based on the surface area and the “time to heal” of the ulcers for further correlation and analysis.

Results: This was a cross-sectional study conducted at a tertiary care center. The study included 35 patients, with the majority (30 patients, 85.7%) diagnosed with fungal etiology. The average corneal sensations in the ulcer and the normal eyes were 52.29 mm and 57.36 mm, respectively. The inter-eye differences were 3.93 mm (p = 0.06) and 6.55 mm (p = 0.04) among patients with an average surface area of ≤ 10 mm2 and > 10 mm2, respectively. Patients who took up to 30 days and > 30 days to heal had inter-eye differences in a sensation of 0.71 mm (p = 0.04) and 6.14 mm (p = 0.05), respectively.

Conclusions: The mean corneal sensations in all quadrants were less significant in the infectious ulcer eyes than normal eyes. Infectious ulcers with a surface area of > 10 mm2 had greater inter-eye differences in their corneal sensitivities. Patients who took a longer "time to heal" of > 30 days showed a significant and greater inter-eye difference in their corneal sensitivities.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file

References

  1. Cruzat A, Pavan-Langston D, Hamrah P. In vivo confocal microscopy of corneal nerves: analysis and clinical correlation. Semin Ophthalmol. 2010; 25(5-6): 171–177.
  2. Shaheen BS, Bakir M, Jain S. Corneal nerves in health and disease. Surv Ophthalmol. 2014; 59(3): 263–285.
  3. Bragheeth MA, Dua HS. Corneal sensation after myopic and hyperopic LASIK: clinical and confocal microscopic study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005; 89(5): 580–585.
  4. Brennan NA, Bruce AS. Esthesiometry as an indicator of corneal health. Optom Vis Sci. 1991; 68(9): 699–702.
  5. Collins M, Seeto R, Campbell L, et al. Blinking and corneal sensitivity. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1989; 67(5): 525–531.
  6. Booranapong W, Tanthuvanit P, Suwannik A. Corneal sensation in the normal Thai population. Siraj Medical J. 2005; 57: 262–65.
  7. Chao C, Stapleton F, Badarudin E, et al. Ocular surface sensitivity repeatability with Cochet-Bonnet esthesiometer. Optom Vis Sci. 2015; 92(2): 183–189.
  8. Müller LJ, Marfurt CF, Kruse F, et al. Corneal nerves: structure, contents and function. Exp Eye Res. 2003; 76(5): 521–542.
  9. Cruzat A, Schrems WA, Schrems-Hoesl LM, et al. Contralateral Clinically Unaffected Eyes of Patients With Unilateral Infectious Keratitis Demonstrate a Sympathetic Immune Response. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015; 56(11): 6612–6620.
  10. Marcos-Fernández M, Tabernero S, Herreras J, et al. Impact of herpetic stromal immune keratitis in corneal biomechanics and innervation. Graefe's Arch Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2017; 256(1): 155–161.
  11. Rolinski J, Hus I. Immunological aspects of acute and recurrent herpes simplex keratitis. J Immunol Res. 2014; 2014: 513560.
  12. Cruzat A, Witkin D, Baniasadi N, et al. Inflammation and the nervous system: the connection in the cornea in patients with infectious keratitis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011; 52(8): 5136–5143.
  13. Belmonte C, Acosta MC, Gallar J. Neural basis of sensation in intact and injured corneas. Exp Eye Res. 2004; 78(3): 513–525.
  14. Bharathi MJ, Ramakrishnan R, Meenakshi R, et al. Microbial keratitis in South India: influence of risk factors, climate, and geographical variation. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2007; 14(2): 61–69.
  15. Ravinder K, Madhav MV. Archa¬na J, Pandurang J. Clinical evaluation of corneal ulcer among patients attending teaching hospital. Int J Contem Med Res. 2016; 3(4): 949–952.
  16. Lin CC, Lalitha P, Srinivasan M, et al. Seasonal trends of microbial keratitis in South India. Cornea. 2012; 31(10): 1123–1127.
  17. Tesón M, Calonge M, Fernández I, et al. Characterization by Belmonte's gas esthesiometer of mechanical, chemical, and thermal corneal sensitivity thresholds in a normal population. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012; 53(6): 3154–3160.
  18. Selvin S, Kotak S, Christina M. Establishing the normal range of corneal sensitivity in an Indian Population using the Cochet–Bonnet esthesiometer. Curr Med Issu. 2020; 18(3): 170.