Paul Rozenbroek, Annie Waugh, Gillian Heller, Raymond Hayler, Jacinta Cleary, Shaheen Hasmat, Nigel H Lovell, Gregg Suaning, Jonathan R Clark, Tsu-Hui Hubert Low
{"title":"Acceptance and willingness of patients with chronic facial nerve palsy for an implantable device that assists with eye closure.","authors":"Paul Rozenbroek, Annie Waugh, Gillian Heller, Raymond Hayler, Jacinta Cleary, Shaheen Hasmat, Nigel H Lovell, Gregg Suaning, Jonathan R Clark, Tsu-Hui Hubert Low","doi":"10.1016/j.bjps.2024.09.028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with facial nerve palsy often experience lagophthalmos (incomplete eye closure), which can lead to exposure keratitis. The Bionic Lid Implant for Natural Eye Closure (BLINC) is a medical device designed to mimic the more natural blink kinetics than traditional lid loading techniques.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate potential factors that might influence the design of the BLINC device and willingness of participant to undergo the implant placement surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients attending a multidisciplinary facial nerve clinic were invited to complete a survey addressing patient acceptance of the BLINC device implantation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-two patients were mailed the survey, of which 50 returned completed surveys (69%). The most important factor identified by participants was the device function (81% ranked as very important) and the least important factor was cost (16% ranked as very important). Median acceptable device function time was 5 years (range 1-10 years). Ten participants (20%) indicated willingness to be the first to trial BLINC. Women were more likely to rate visual appearance as important (OR 3.32, CI 1.14-9.62, p = 0.028), and less likely to rate user friendliness as important (OR 0.16, CI 0.04-0.52, p = 0.0021). Older participants were more likely to rate the length of recovery period as important (OR 1.04, CI 1.01-1.08, p = 0.006). Participants with complete eye closure were less likely to be willing to trial the implant (OR 0.08, CI 0.00-0.53, p = 0.006, whilst patients with eye irritation were more willing to trial the implant (OR 7.20, CI 1.12-142, p = 0.036).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Certain patient demographics impact patient aesthetic and functional preferences and the willingness to trial the BLINC device.</p>","PeriodicalId":94104,"journal":{"name":"Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2024.09.028","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Patients with facial nerve palsy often experience lagophthalmos (incomplete eye closure), which can lead to exposure keratitis. The Bionic Lid Implant for Natural Eye Closure (BLINC) is a medical device designed to mimic the more natural blink kinetics than traditional lid loading techniques.
Aims: This study aimed to evaluate potential factors that might influence the design of the BLINC device and willingness of participant to undergo the implant placement surgery.
Methods: Patients attending a multidisciplinary facial nerve clinic were invited to complete a survey addressing patient acceptance of the BLINC device implantation.
Results: Seventy-two patients were mailed the survey, of which 50 returned completed surveys (69%). The most important factor identified by participants was the device function (81% ranked as very important) and the least important factor was cost (16% ranked as very important). Median acceptable device function time was 5 years (range 1-10 years). Ten participants (20%) indicated willingness to be the first to trial BLINC. Women were more likely to rate visual appearance as important (OR 3.32, CI 1.14-9.62, p = 0.028), and less likely to rate user friendliness as important (OR 0.16, CI 0.04-0.52, p = 0.0021). Older participants were more likely to rate the length of recovery period as important (OR 1.04, CI 1.01-1.08, p = 0.006). Participants with complete eye closure were less likely to be willing to trial the implant (OR 0.08, CI 0.00-0.53, p = 0.006, whilst patients with eye irritation were more willing to trial the implant (OR 7.20, CI 1.12-142, p = 0.036).
Conclusion: Certain patient demographics impact patient aesthetic and functional preferences and the willingness to trial the BLINC device.