The objective was to obtain normative values from modified Hertel exophthalmometer, to compare difference in values between modified and standard Hertel exophthalmometer and to statistically analyze for correlation.
Methods:
The study to validate the modification done to Hertel exophthalmometer was performed at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery at our institute. Informed consent was obtained from patients; measurement in 100 volunteers was made with Hertel and modified Hertel exophthalmometer by a single observer, and the measurements taken by the 2 devices were tabulated along with variables such as age and gender. Data were collected and statistical analysis was performed to compare and correlate the values between standard and modified exophthalmometer. Differences of ocular protrusion values in gender and age were also calculated.
Results:
There has been no statistically significant difference in the normative data between standard Hertel and modified Hertel exophthalmometer and in relation to age and gender.
Conclusions:
The modification of the Hertel exophthalmometer is validated and can also be used for relative exophthalmometry to assess the need for treatment and to evaluate the globe position and orbital volume intraoperatively. The proposed modification of the instrument allows it to be used in cases when one of the lateral orbital walls is fractured or displaced due to trauma.
FosterOA. Differential diagnosis of the causes of exophthalmos. Br J Ophthalmol. 1938;22(6):364–375.
2.
CohnHL. Messungen Der Prominenz Der AugenmittelsteinesneuenInstrumentes Des Exophtalmometers. 1868.
3.
KashkouliMBBeigiBNooraniMMNojoomiM. Hertel exophthalmometry: reliability and interobserver variation. Orbit. 2003;22(4):239–245.
4.
AmeriHFentonS. Comparison of unilateral and simultaneous bilateral measurement of the globe position, using the Hertel exophthalmometer. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;20(6):448–451.
5.
ChoiSHKangDHGuJH. The correlation between the orbital volume ratio and enophthalmos in unoperated blowout fractures. Arch Plast Surg. 2016;43(6):518–522. doi:10.5999/aps.2016.43.6.518
6.
CatoneGAMorrissetteMPCarlsonER. A retrospective study of untreated orbital blow-out fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1988;46(12):1033–1037.
7.
HammerBPreinJ. Correction of post-traumatic orbital deformities: operative techniques and review of 26 patients. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 1995;23(2):81–90.
8.
Van HoutWMVan CannEMMuradinMSFrankMHKooleR. Intraoperative imaging for the repair of zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures: a comprehensive review of the literature. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014;42(8):1918–1923.
9.
DrewsLC. Exophthalmometry and a new exophthalmometer. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 1956;54(1):215.
10.
ChaneRARootmanJ. Enophthalmos: a clinical review. Ophthalmology. 1984;91(3):229–237.
11.
NkenkeEBenzMMaierT, et al.Relative en- and exophthalmometry in zygomatic fractures comparing optical non-contact, non-ionizing 3D imaging to the Hertel instrument and computed tomography. J Craniomaxillofacial Surg. 2003;31(6):362–368.
12.
YeattsRPvan RensETaylorCL. Measurement of globe position in complex orbital fractures. I. A modification of Hertel’s exophthalmometer, using the external auditory canal as a reference point. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 1992;8(2):114–118.
13.
KratkyVHurwitzJJ. Hertel exophthalmometry without orbital rim contact. Ophthalmology. 1994;101(5):931–937.
JinHRShinSOChooMJChoiYS. Relationship between the extent of fracture and the degree of enophthalmos in isolated blowout fractures of the medial orbital wall. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000;58(6):617–620.
16.
MansonPNGrivasARosenbaumAVannierMZinreichJIliffN. Studies on enophthalmos: II. The measurement of orbital injuries and their treatment by quantitative computed tomography. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1986;77(2):203–214.
17.
RamieriGSpadaMCBianchiSDBerroneS. Dimensions and volumes of the orbit and orbital fat in posttraumatic enophthalmos. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2000;29(5):302–311.
18.
NasirSARamliRJabarNA. Predictors of enophthalmos among adult patients with pure orbital blowout fractures. PloS One. 2018;13(10):e0204946.
19.
GoldbergRARelanAHoenigJ. Relationship of the eye to the bony orbit, with clinical correlations. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol. 1999;27(6):398–403.
20.
ParsonsGSMathogRH. Orbital wall and volume relationships. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1988;114(7):743–747.
21.
KooLHattonMPRubinPA. When is enophthalmos “significant”?Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;22(1):274–277.
22.
ForrestCR. Secondary management of posttraumatic craniofacial deformities. In: JeffreyW, ed. Plastic Surgery Secrets Plus. 2nd ed. Mosby Elsevier; 2010:330–339.
23.
BogrenHGFrantiCEWilmarthSS. Normal variations of the position of the eye in the orbit. Ophthalmology. 1986;93(8):1072–1077.
24.
SungYSChungCMHongIP. The correlation between the degree of enophthalmos and the extent of fracture in medial orbital wall fracture left untreated for over six months: a retrospective analysis of 81 cases at a single institution. Arch Plast Surg. 2013;40(4):335–340.
25.
ClauserLGalieMPagliaroFTieghiR. Posttraumatic enophthalmos: etiology, principles of reconstruction, and correction. J Craniofac Surg. 2008;19(2):351–359.
26.
GaziriDAOmizolloGLuchiGHde OliveiraMGHeitzC. Assessment for treatment of tripod fractures of the zygoma with microcompressive screws. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;70(6):e378–e388.
27.
OgunmuyiwaSAFatusiOAUgbokoVIAyoolaOOMaajiSM. The validity of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of zygomaticomaxillary complex fractures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;41(4):500–505.
28.
RamliNKalaSSamsudinARahmatK, Zainal Abidin Z. Proptosis—correlation and agreement between Hertel exophthalmometry and computed tomography. Orbit. 2015;34(5):257–262.
29.
MaheedharARavindranCAzariahED. Use of C-arm to assess reduction of zygomatic complex fractures: a comparative study. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2017;10(1):35–43.
30.
DelmasJLoustauJMMartinSBourmaultLAdenisJPRobertPY. Comparative study of 3 exophthalmometers and computed tomographic biometry. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2018;28(2):144–149.
31.
DohvomaVAEpéeEMvogoSRLietcheuNSMvogoCE. Correlation between Hertel exophthalmometric value and refraction in young Cameroonian adults aged 20 to 40 years. Clin Ophthalmol. 2016;10:1447.
32.
DunskyIL. Normative data for Hertel exophthalmometry in a normal adult black population. Optom Vis Sci. 1992;69(7):562–564.
33.
FruehWTFruehBR. Errors of single-mirror or prism Hertel exophthalmometers and recommendations for minimizing the errors. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;23(3):197–201.
Kumari SodhiPGuptaVPPandeyRM. Exophthalmometric values in a normal Indian population. Orbit. 2001;20(1):1–9.
36.
KnudtzonK. On exophthalmometry: the result of 724 measurements with the Hertel exophthalmometer on normal adult individuals. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1949;24(3-4):523.
37.
OmerKOzlemBSKarahanEMehmetOZMuratU. The effect of age, gender, refractive status and axial length on the measurements of Hertel exophthalmometry. Open Ophthalmol J. 2015;9:113–115.
38.
MiglioriMEGladstoneGJ. Determination of the normal range of exophthalmometric values for black and white adults. Am J Ophthalmol. 1984;98(4):438–442.
39.
LamAKLamCFLeungWKHungPK. Intra-observer and inter-observer variation of Hertel exophthalmometry. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2009;29(4):472–476. doi:10.1111/j.1475-1313.2008.00617.x
40.
KarwoskiBAKillianFARosenbergCGlavasYP. Inter-observer variability of Hertel exophthalmometry stratified by training experience. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50(13):4038.
41.
MuschDCFruehBRLandisJR. The reliability of Hertel exophthalmometry: observer variation between physician and lay readers. Ophthalmology. 1985;92(9):1177–1180.
