Talk:Ocular prosthesis

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Ophthalmology task force.

Purpose of artificial eye in the cat[edit]

So that cat has an artificial eye? Was it on purpose for the benefit of the cat, because it looks more like a genetic mutation of the eye. Its a bit big, does that hurt?

Agree that the cat could be omitted or placed at the end, as most eye-makers have been asked to fit a domestic animal. Art4med (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive information[edit]

While very informative, the article is a bit dense and overspecific. I'm not a fan of removing information, but this looks like it was taken straight from a medical journal. I'm not a dumb person and even know a bit about medicine/prosthetics, but much of this article is too technical for me to understand. Some lay-explanations or descriptions would be very helpful. The Cap'n (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I wouldn't remove info, but instead explain more, like you say.

E.g. here:

> insertion of a coupling device (PEG)

is PEG an abbreviation? if so, should be a wikilink, or at least have the abbreviation explained. TomasFiers (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete info[edit]

All descriptions here apply to enucleation but many, many people have an evisceration where the globe of the eye is not removed and so the muscles aren't cut and don't need attaching to the implant. So the article is imcomplete. Actually I'd think an article on prostheses shouldn't necessarily go into enucleation and evisceration procedures but just stick to how the prosthesis is made.

Also I've had an artificial eye for over 20 years and I have never heard it called a glass eye. That term is so far outdated as to be ridiculous. 87.194.81.2 (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see new sectionArt4med (talk) 00:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on page and photos[edit]

I agree that the page should only refer to surgical types, rather than include their description.
Although artificial eyes in North America and Western Europe are made of acrylic since the 40's, I can attest that the term "glass eye" is known to most people and patients, even if they call theirs (correctly) an "ocular prosthesis." Furthermore (and surprisingly), glass is *still the preferred material in Germany, Russia, parts of China, Turkey, and the third world.Art4med (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also note: the photos are pretty dreadful, as both shown are "stock" rather than "custom" prostheses, the standard in North America and Western Europe.
(I have studied eyes, visual science, ophthalmic practice, illustrated eye surgery for 30+ years, and have made artificial eyes and written extensively on the topic in the professional literature.) I will attend this topic later/soon, and happily be the expert until someone else steps-up.Art4med (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[This moved to New Section today with a minor edit.]Art4med (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notable People[edit]

I cannot believe that this section is missing David Bowie and Thom Yorke, so that leads me to wonder whether they count as having prosthetic eyes. I know that Bowie always talked about the fight he had as a kid, and his subsequent use of different colored irises as part of his schtick, but he always used the term "glass eye" which is ancient history as I understand it. Do these people fit into the category, or is there something significantly different about their condition? I didn't want to just wade in and make assumptions. I'm not a proper expert! sugarfish (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comments[edit]

The media available at Wiki depicts several true glass eyes, an ocular implant (sphere buried at surgery, replacing the volume of natural eye), an "orbital" prosthesis (worn externally after orbital exeneration, etc. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ocular_prosthesis
NOTE: "prosthetic" is an adjective, rather than a noun; the appropriate noun is "artificial eye," "ocular prosthesis" "prosthetic eye"; the plural is "prostheses." I changed some of these entries in the first paragraphs to make the nouns more consistent. This is the time available, will revisit. Art4med (talk) 00:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC) It is debatable that this be considered a craniofacial appliance, but that is fine. The "orbital" prosthesis in WikiCommons is only to distinguish it from one residing in the ('socket' between and behind the eyelids). It might better be termed an 'external' prosthesis. Will next upload a better image of a custom prosthesis. This page needs to be legible to patients, and currently reads like competing commercial interests. Art4med (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ocular prosthesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509132153/http://www.artificialeyeclinic.com/fabricating_prostheses.html to http://artificialeyeclinic.com/fabricating_prostheses.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.artificialeyeclinic.com/history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]