INTRODUCTION: Congenital microphthalmos and anophthalmos are rare. The reduced eyeball size, or its absence, prevents the normal development of the orbit. This lack of development has functional, physical and psychological repercussions. The authors report their experience of prosthetic treatment for microphthalmos and anophthalmos. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Our study is about 11 children with 13 cases of microphthalmos and 2 of anophthalmos. These cases have been clinically observed between 1998 and 2002. A detailed history, ophthalmological and complete paediatric examination and a prosthetic treatment were undertaken for all of them. RESULTS: 4 children had bilateral involvement. 8 children had other ocular or general malformations. No prenatal infections during pregnancy were detected (rubella, cytomegalovirus). One treatment of clinical anophthalmos was interrupted on the parents' request (slow and bad evolution with complete retraction of the orbital socket after a conjunctivitis). For 9 children, the evolution was good with growth of the orbital cavity and a satisfactory cosmetic result. However, hypoplasia was observed on the lateral orbital wall for severe microphthalmos. One child presenting a bilateral microphthalmos received a cosmetic scleral shell with optical correction. CONCLUSIONS: Management of anophthalmos is difficult and unrewarding. But the use of cosmetic scleral shells in all cases of microphthalmos, even severe ones, is useful and effective.
INTRODUCTION:Congenital microphthalmos and anophthalmos are rare. The reduced eyeball size, or its absence, prevents the normal development of the orbit. This lack of development has functional, physical and psychological repercussions. The authors report their experience of prosthetic treatment for microphthalmos and anophthalmos. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Our study is about 11 children with 13 cases of microphthalmos and 2 of anophthalmos. These cases have been clinically observed between 1998 and 2002. A detailed history, ophthalmological and complete paediatric examination and a prosthetic treatment were undertaken for all of them. RESULTS: 4 children had bilateral involvement. 8 children had other ocular or general malformations. No prenatal infections during pregnancy were detected (rubella, cytomegalovirus). One treatment of clinical anophthalmos was interrupted on the parents' request (slow and bad evolution with complete retraction of the orbital socket after a conjunctivitis). For 9 children, the evolution was good with growth of the orbital cavity and a satisfactory cosmetic result. However, hypoplasia was observed on the lateral orbital wall for severe microphthalmos. One child presenting a bilateral microphthalmos received a cosmetic scleral shell with optical correction. CONCLUSIONS: Management of anophthalmos is difficult and unrewarding. But the use of cosmetic scleral shells in all cases of microphthalmos, even severe ones, is useful and effective.