Assessing the sensory function of the ocular surface: Implications of use of a non-contact air jet aesthesiometer versus the Cochet-Bonnet aesthesiometer
Assessing the sensory function of the ocular surface: Implications of use of a non-contact air jet aesthesiometer versus the Cochet-Bonnet aesthesiometer
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.exer.2011.02.016
复制
发表时间：
2011-05-01
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
Stapleton, F.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Golebiowski, B.;Papas, E.;Stapleton, F.
角膜感觉功能的评估通常使用Cochet-Bonnet感觉计进行。这种仪器的局限性导致了新仪器的开发，例如CRCERT-Belmonte触觉计，其利用空气射流作为刺激。然而，最近的研究表明，当用不同类型的触觉计测量时，对眼表敏感性的影响相互矛盾。本研究的目的是比较CRCERT-Belmonte和Cochet-Bonnet感觉计获得的角膜敏感性的临床测量值，并检查其施加的力的刺激特性。在一组正常受试者中，用两种触觉仪测量的中央角膜敏感度之间没有发现关联。Cochet-Bonnet感觉计的灵敏度低于CRCERT-Belmonte。超过一半的受试者无法使用标准Cochet-Bonnet细丝进行评估，11%的受试者无法使用任何一种细丝进行评估，因为他们的角膜敏感性超出了仪器的范围。相反，所有受试者都在CRCERT-Belmonte感觉计的刺激范围内。使用非接触式CRCERT-Belmonte触觉计和Cochet-Bonnet触觉计进行的角膜敏感度测量不具有可比性。由于它们的刺激成分不同，因此刺激模式不同，这两种仪器可能测量神经反应的不同方面。Cochet-Bonnet角膜感觉计低估了角膜敏感性，并且根本无法测量某些受试者的敏感性，这是评估敏感性丧失的重要考虑因素。这种仪器不太可能检测到细微的变化，特别是在较高的灵敏度水平下。因此，应谨慎使用Cochet-Bonnet，并将0.08 mm直径用作选择的细丝。应考虑采用非接触式触觉计作为眼敏感度测量的标准。非接触式仪器允许上级刺激再现性和对刺激特性的更好控制，以及探索眼表面上所有三种类型的神经受体的响应的能力。(c)2011爱思唯尔有限公司版权所有。
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. (c) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.