Literature DB >> 21376718

Assessing the sensory function of the ocular surface: implications of use of a non-contact air jet aesthesiometer versus the Cochet-Bonnet aesthesiometer.

B Golebiowski1, E Papas, F Stapleton.   

Abstract

Assessment of corneal sensory function is commonly carried out using the Cochet-Bonnet aesthesiometer. The limitations of this instrument have lead to development of newer instruments, such as the CRCERT-Belmonte aesthesiometer, which utilise a jet of air as their stimulus. Recent work, however, has demonstrated contradictory effects on ocular surface sensitivity when measured with different types of aesthesiometer. The purpose of the present study was to compare clinical measurements of corneal sensitivity obtained with the CRCERT-Belmonte and the Cochet-Bonnet aesthesiometers and to examine their stimulus characteristics in terms of force exerted. No association was found between central corneal sensitivity measured with the two aesthesiometers in a group of normal subjects. Sensitivity was measured to be lower with the Cochet-Bonnet aesthesiometer than with the CRCERT-Belmonte. Over half of the subjects could not be assessed with the standard Cochet-Bonnet filament and 11% could not be assessed with either filament, as their corneal sensitivity was outside of the range of the instrument. In contrast, all subjects were within the stimulus range of the CRCERT-Belmonte aesthesiometer. Corneal sensitivity measurements made with the non-contact CRCERT-Belmonte aesthesiometer and the Cochet-Bonnet aesthesiometer are not comparable. Due to dissimilarities in the composition of their stimuli, and thus mode of stimulation, it is possible that the two instruments measure different aspects of the neural response. The underestimation of corneal sensitivity by the Cochet-Bonnet aesthesiometer and its inability to measure sensitivity of some subjects at all are important considerations in the assessment of sensitivity loss. Subtle changes are unlikely to be detected with this instrument, particularly at higher sensitivity levels. The Cochet-Bonnet should therefore be used with caution and the 0.08 mm diameter used as the filament of choice. Adoption of a non-contact aesthesiometer as standard for ocular sensitivity measurement should be considered. The non-contact instrument allows superior stimulus reproducibility and better control over stimulus characteristics, in addition to the ability for exploration of the response of all three types of neuro-receptors on the ocular surface.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21376718     DOI: 10.1016/j.exer.2011.02.016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Eye Res        ISSN: 0014-4835            Impact factor:   3.467


  28 in total

1.  The TFOS International Workshop on Contact Lens Discomfort: report of the subcommittee on neurobiology.

Authors:  Fiona Stapleton; Carl Marfurt; Blanka Golebiowski; Mark Rosenblatt; David Bereiter; Carolyn Begley; Darlene Dartt; Juana Gallar; Carlos Belmonte; Pedram Hamrah; Mark Willcox
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2013-10-18       Impact factor: 4.799

Review 2.  TFOS DEWS II pain and sensation report.

Authors:  Carlos Belmonte; Jason J Nichols; Stephanie M Cox; James A Brock; Carolyn G Begley; David A Bereiter; Darlene A Dartt; Anat Galor; Pedram Hamrah; Jason J Ivanusic; Deborah S Jacobs; Nancy A McNamara; Mark I Rosenblatt; Fiona Stapleton; James S Wolffsohn
Journal:  Ocul Surf       Date:  2017-07-20       Impact factor: 5.033

3.  Reliability of a laryngo-pharyngeal esthesiometer and a method for measuring laryngo-pharyngeal mechano-sensitivity in a prospectively recruited cohort of patients.

Authors:  Luis F Giraldo-Cadavid; Javier Burguete; Felipe Rueda; Ana M Galvis; Natalia Castaneda; Luis M Agudelo-Otalora; William D Moscoso; Nelson Paez; Secundino Fernandez
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2017-03-24       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  Effects of ambient humidity on the Cochet-Bonnet aesthesiometer.

Authors:  Edward Lum; Paul J Murphy
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2018-06-19       Impact factor: 3.775

5.  In Vivo Confocal Microscopy Shows Alterations in Nerve Density and Dendritiform Cell Density in Fuchs' Endothelial Corneal Dystrophy.

Authors:  Shruti Aggarwal; Bernardo M Cavalcanti; Laura Regali; Andrea Cruzat; Monique Trinidad; Candice Williams; Ula V Jurkunas; Pedram Hamrah
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-09-06       Impact factor: 5.258

6.  In vivo confocal microscopy detects bilateral changes of corneal immune cells and nerves in unilateral herpes zoster ophthalmicus.

Authors:  Bernardo M Cavalcanti; Andrea Cruzat; Afsun Sahin; Deborah Pavan-Langston; Eric Samayoa; Pedram Hamrah
Journal:  Ocul Surf       Date:  2017-09-18       Impact factor: 5.033

Review 7.  In Vivo Confocal Microscopy of Corneal Nerves in Health and Disease.

Authors:  Andrea Cruzat; Yureeda Qazi; Pedram Hamrah
Journal:  Ocul Surf       Date:  2016-10-19       Impact factor: 5.033

8.  Elevated IGFBP3 levels in diabetic tears: a negative regulator of IGF-1 signaling in the corneal epithelium.

Authors:  Yu-Chieh Wu; Benjamin R Buckner; Meifang Zhu; H Dwight Cavanagh; Danielle M Robertson
Journal:  Ocul Surf       Date:  2012-01-12       Impact factor: 5.033

9.  Structural and functional changes in corneal innervation after laser in situ keratomileusis and their relationship with dry eye.

Authors:  Cecilia Chao; Fiona Stapleton; Xiangtian Zhou; Shihao Chen; Shi Zhou; Blanka Golebiowski
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-08-11       Impact factor: 3.117

10.  Comparison of deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty and penetrating keratoplasty with respect to postoperative corneal sensitivity and tear film function.

Authors:  Xiaolei Lin; Binbin Xu; Yifang Sun; Jing Zhong; Weilan Huang; Jin Yuan
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-07-31       Impact factor: 3.117

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.