Assessment of Orbital Compartment Pressure: A Comprehensive Review.

Tim J Enz, Markus Tschopp
Author Information
  1. Tim J Enz: Department of Ophthalmology, University of Basel, CH-4031 Basel, Switzerland. ORCID
  2. Markus Tschopp: Department of Ophthalmology, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, CH-5001 Aarau, Switzerland.

Abstract

The orbit is a closed compartment defined by the orbital bones and the orbital septum. Some diseases of the orbit and the optic nerve are associated with an increased orbital compartment pressure (OCP), e.g., retrobulbar hemorrhage or thyroid eye disease. Our aim was to review the literature on the different approaches to assess OCP. Historically, an assessment of the tissue resistance provoked by the retropulsion of the eye bulb was the method of choice for estimating OCP, either by digital palpation or with specifically designed devices. We found a total of 20 articles reporting direct OCP measurement in animals, cadavers and humans. In nine studies, OCP was directly measured in humans, of which five used a minimally invasive approach. Two groups used experimental/custom devices, whilst the others applied commercially available devices commonly used for monitoring the compartment syndromes of the limbs. None of the nine articles on direct OCP measurements in humans reported complications. Today, OCP is mainly estimated using clinical findings considered surrogates, e.g., elevated intraocular pressure or proptosis. These diagnostic markers appear to reliably indicate elevated OCP. However, particularly minimally invasive approaches show promises for direct OCP measurements. In the future, more sophisticated, specifically designed equipment might allow for even better and safer measurements and hence facilitate the diagnosis and monitoring of orbital diseases.

Keywords

References

  1. Br J Ophthalmol. 1996 Dec;80(12):1042-5 [PMID: 9059266]
  2. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 1975 Oct;167(4):593-6 [PMID: 1206940]
  3. J Glaucoma. 2013 Jun-Jul;22 Suppl 5:S15-6 [PMID: 23733116]
  4. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008 Sep;126(9):1257-60 [PMID: 18779487]
  5. Clin Pract Cases Emerg Med. 2018 Apr 05;2(2):169-170 [PMID: 29849272]
  6. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2016 Nov;44(8):724-725 [PMID: 26950408]
  7. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 Jan-Feb;28(1):7-10 [PMID: 21946770]
  8. J Endocrinol Invest. 2021 Mar;44(3):421-429 [PMID: 32729049]
  9. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007 Nov;65(11):2282-7 [PMID: 17954326]
  10. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999 Sep;104(3):713-8 [PMID: 10456523]
  11. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1996 Aug;34(4):289-92 [PMID: 8866062]
  12. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Nov;58(9):1091-1096 [PMID: 32546417]
  13. Surv Ophthalmol. 2009 Sep-Oct;54(5):519-44 [PMID: 19682621]
  14. Emerg Med J. 2019 Apr;36(4):245-247 [PMID: 30630842]
  15. Med Hypotheses. 2012 Dec;79(6):719-24 [PMID: 22981592]
  16. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 Jan-Feb;28(1):40-3 [PMID: 22262289]
  17. Am J Ophthalmol. 1958 Feb;45(2):208-21 [PMID: 13508788]
  18. J Spec Oper Med. 2009 Summer;9(3):26-32 [PMID: 19739474]
  19. J Fr Ophtalmol. 2010 Nov;33(9):623-9 [PMID: 21047700]
  20. Eye (Lond). 2014 Nov;28(11):1315-20 [PMID: 25145456]
  21. Can J Ophthalmol. 1984 Apr;19(3):122-5 [PMID: 6733579]
  22. Am J Emerg Med. 2020 Nov;38(11):2308-2312 [PMID: 31784392]
  23. Surv Ophthalmol. 2009 Jul-Aug;54(4):441-9 [PMID: 19539832]
  24. J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. 2021 Mar 06;2(2):e12372 [PMID: 33733246]
  25. Br J Ophthalmol. 1968 Apr;52(4):355 [PMID: 5651052]
  26. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1984;82:492-598 [PMID: 6398935]
  27. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016 Aug;44(8):1008-14 [PMID: 27259677]
  28. Can J Ophthalmol. 1988 Dec;23(7):308-10 [PMID: 3228778]
  29. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999 Jul;104(1):48-54 [PMID: 10597673]
  30. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2014 May;24(5):331-4 [PMID: 24848391]
  31. Laryngoscope. 1989 Jan;99(1):19-22 [PMID: 2909818]
  32. Can J Ophthalmol. 1990 Oct;25(6):293-7 [PMID: 2249165]
  33. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 1985;1(1):55-63 [PMID: 3940104]
  34. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016 May-Jun;32(3):187-90 [PMID: 25844506]
  35. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018 Sep/Oct;34(5):456-459 [PMID: 29334542]
  36. Clin Ophthalmol. 2019 Nov 07;13:2189-2194 [PMID: 31806931]
  37. Am J Ophthalmol. 1954 Apr;37(4):520-8 [PMID: 13148280]
  38. World J Emerg Surg. 2020 Oct 21;15(1):60 [PMID: 33087153]
  39. Ophthalmology. 1999 Jul;106(7):1296-302 [PMID: 10406609]
  40. Orbit. 2021 Jun;40(3):222-227 [PMID: 32460574]
  41. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2021 Nov;259(11):3413-3419 [PMID: 34097110]
  42. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001 May;119(5):677-83 [PMID: 11346395]
  43. Am J Ophthalmol. 1953 Jan;36(1):45-55 [PMID: 13016713]
  44. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018 Jul/Aug;34(4S Suppl 1):S60-S67 [PMID: 29927882]
  45. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999 Mar;15(2):121-5 [PMID: 10189640]
  46. Orbit. 2017 Oct;36(5):285-292 [PMID: 28812399]
  47. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005 Nov;140(5):868-876 [PMID: 16310464]
  48. Am J Med Sci. 1950 Oct;220(4):357-61 [PMID: 14771063]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0OCPorbitalcompartmentpressureeyedevicesdirecthumansusedminimallyinvasivemeasurementsorbitdiseasesegthyroiddiseaseapproachesspecificallydesignedarticlesmeasurementninemonitoringelevatedcloseddefinedbonesseptumopticnerveassociatedincreasedretrobulbarhemorrhageaimreviewliteraturedifferentassessHistoricallyassessmenttissueresistanceprovokedretropulsionbulbmethodchoiceestimatingeitherdigitalpalpationfoundtotal20reportinganimalscadaversstudiesdirectlymeasuredfiveapproachTwogroupsexperimental/customwhilstothersappliedcommerciallyavailablecommonlysyndromeslimbsNonereportedcomplicationsTodaymainlyestimatedusingclinicalfindingsconsideredsurrogatesintraocularproptosisdiagnosticmarkersappearreliablyindicateHoweverparticularlyshowpromisesfuturesophisticatedequipmentmightallowevenbettersaferhencefacilitatediagnosisAssessmentOrbitalCompartmentPressure:ComprehensiveReviewsyndrome

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.