Authors (including presenting author) :
Tang WT(1), Mak HC(1), Tsang SW(2), Wong KM(1), Lau KY(3), Chan YY(3), Ma KY(3), Mok CT(3), Chu XL(4), Poon WS(4), Chan TM(4)
Affiliation :
(1) Department of Occupational Therapy, Prince of Wales Hospital, (2) Occupational Medicine Care Service (OMCS), Department of Family Medicine, NTEC, (3) Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine & Therapeutic, Prince of Wales Hospital, (4) Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital
Introduction :
Patients with blepharospasm and blepharoptosis present with visual disturbances. These patients are referred to OT for ptosis splint as conservative treatment, which is fabricated in a conventional way with wire and nasal cannula for attachment onto the spectacle frame to elevate one’s eyelid.
Such fabrication requires long fabrication time and precision in skills, yet the effect on each patient varies. Hence, 3D-printing technology was adopted in creating ptosis splints for easy attachment onto the spectacle frame. Conventional and 3D-printing ptosis splints vary in terms of design, practicability and effectiveness, yet their strengths and weaknesses are unclear.
Objectives :
This pilot study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of conventional & 3D-printing ptosis splints in treating blepharospasm & blepharoptosis from therapists’ & patients’ perspectives.
Methodology :
Patients over 18 years old, diagnosed with blepharospasm or blepharoptosis were recruited from LKS SOPD Botox clinic under convenient sampling. Subjects were randomised into two groups in applying conventional and 3D-printing ptosis splints respectively, followed by filling in a questionnaire.
Result & Outcome :
Two sets of data were collected from 7 subjects and therapists respectively. Subjects’ and therapists’ preferences on ptosis splints measured with various parameters were rated in 5-point Likert Scale. Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Test was used to compare the two designs and they were found to have no statistically significant difference. There was also no significant difference between the two disease types and gender after conducting Mann-Whitney test.
Though the results showed no significant difference as limited by the small sample size, comparison between the two designs can be drawn clinically. The overall performance of the conventional design was over that of 3D-printing design in terms of durability, outlook, convenience and effectiveness with percentage ranging from 13% to 25%, showing patients’ preferences over the traditional design. Therapists, in contrast, preferred 3D-printing to conventional design considering fabrication time, manpower cost and weight. Future study is required for more objective comparison and parametric statistical analysis with a larger sample size.
