October 2010
Volume 51, Issue 10
Free
Anatomy and Pathology/Oncology  |   October 2010
CT Based Three-Dimensional Measurement of Orbit and Eye Anthropometry
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Ashley A. Weaver
    From the School of Biomedical Engineering and Sciences and
    Virginia Tech–Wake Forest University Center for Injury Biomechanics, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; and
  • Kathryn L. Loftis
    From the School of Biomedical Engineering and Sciences and
    Virginia Tech–Wake Forest University Center for Injury Biomechanics, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; and
  • Josh C. Tan
    Center for Biomolecular Engineering, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina;
  • Stefan M. Duma
    Virginia Tech–Wake Forest University Center for Injury Biomechanics, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; and
    School of Biomedical Engineering and Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Viginia.
  • Joel D. Stitzel
    From the School of Biomedical Engineering and Sciences and
    Virginia Tech–Wake Forest University Center for Injury Biomechanics, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; and
  • Corresponding author: Joel D. Stitzel, Medical Center Boulevard MRI 2, Winston-Salem, NC 27157; jstitzel@wfubmc.edu
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science October 2010, Vol.51, 4892-4897. doi:10.1167/iovs.10-5503
  • Views
  • PDF
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Ashley A. Weaver, Kathryn L. Loftis, Josh C. Tan, Stefan M. Duma, Joel D. Stitzel; CT Based Three-Dimensional Measurement of Orbit and Eye Anthropometry. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2010;51(10):4892-4897. doi: 10.1167/iovs.10-5503.

      Download citation file:


      © 2017 Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology.

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose.: To measure eye and orbit anthropometric variation within the normal population by using CT images and to determine the effects of age and sex on eye and orbit anthropometry. Quantification of eye and orbit anthropometric variation within the normal population and between persons of different age and sex is important in the prediction and prevention of eye injury.

Methods.: A systematic method was developed to align head CT images three dimensionally and to measure ocular and orbital parameters in 39 subjects. Twenty-four measurements were collected along the orbital rim, to quantify the orbital aperture. Protrusions of the brow and the eye were measured, along with relative distances, to describe location of the eye within the orbit.

Results.: The orbit widened with age, and significant relations were identified between orbital aperture and eye location measurements, both of which varied significantly between the sexes.

Conclusions.: The comprehensive set of measurements collected in this study provides three-dimensional information on orbit geometry, as well as placement of the eye within the orbit. These measurements and the methodology used will contribute to the development of finite element models of the orbit and eye for computational modeling purposes and may be useful in the design of eye protection equipment.

More than 1.9 million eye injuries occur each year in the United States, and trauma is the second leading cause of visual impairment. 1 Common causes of eye trauma include motor vehicle crashes, 29 military operations, 1015 and ocular impacts with sporting equipment. 1622 In military, automotive, and sporting safety, there is concern about eye protection for different individuals. The literature shows that there are significant differences in ocular and orbital geometry among individuals of different age, sex, and ethnicity. 2332 Differences in eye and orbit anthropometry are thought to affect the response of the eye when subjected to a traumatic impact. 
Age- and sex-related ocular and orbital changes have been studied. Ocular protrusion decreases with age in both males and females. 23 That study found the mean protrusion in 21- to 30-year-olds to be 20.2 mm and that in 71- to 80-year-olds to be 16.9 mm, an average reduction of 0.06 mm/year. Ocular protrusion and interpupillary distance have been shown to vary significantly between the sexes, with males having larger measurements than do females. 28 Eyelid fissure has been shown to lengthen by more than 10% between the ages of 12 and 25 years and shorten by a similar amount after 45 years of age. 26 Aging also causes a downward shift of the lower eyelid, which is more prominent in males than in females. Another study found that the orbital rim and cheek mass move posteriorly with respect to the anterior cornea with age. 31 Pessa and Chen 27 measured orbital aperture on human skulls by measuring distances to the superior and inferior orbital rims from a horizontal centerline through the orbit. These superior and inferior orbital rim distances were found to increase with age, especially at the medial superior orbital rim and lateral inferior orbital rim. It was hypothesized that this change in orbital aperture with age could also affect eye measurements. 
Ethnic differences in ocular and facial anthropometry are noted in the literature. The interpupillary distance, outer canthal distance, and inner canthal distance in African-American males and females from birth to 24 years of age were found in a study to be statistically significant when compared with the same measurements in Caucasians. 25 In another study, the interpupillary distance, palpebral fissure width, and eye protrusion were shown to vary significantly between African Americans and Caucasians. 28 Inner canthal and interpupillary distances were shown to be greater in American-born Japanese than in Caucasians of a similar age. 30 Hispanics have a wider interpupillary distance than do Caucasians. Studies have shown that eye protrusion is greater in African Americans than in Caucasians and is lesser in Hispanics than in Caucasians and African Americans. 24,28,29  
In most studies, external measurements or photographs have been used to measure the surface anatomy of the eye and surrounding facial regions. 2326,2830 However, these methods are not capable of describing the underlying bony and soft tissue anatomy that may be important in the protection of the eye during traumatic impact. Human skulls have been used to measure orbital aperture, but this method does not allow for measurement of the location or protrusion of the eye within the orbit. 27 With CT images, accurate measurements can be collected for soft tissue structures such as the eye, as well as the underlying bony structures that surround and protect it. Select distance measurements describing the eye's relation to surrounding bone and soft tissue, orbital volume, and orbital wall morphology have been collected from CT images, but further measurements are necessary to fully describe eye and orbit anatomy. 31,3336 Accurate measurements of eye and orbit anthropometry are valuable in the design of protective equipment for the eye and modeling of facial impacts for injury prediction purposes. 
Methods
For this study, a systematic method was developed to collect several ocular and orbital measurements from CT images. Twenty-four measurements along the orbital rim were collected to quantify the orbital aperture. The protrusion of the brow and the eye were measured, along with distance measurements, to describe the location of the eye within the orbit. 
Head CT scans of 39 Caucasian subjects from Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center were obtained. The research adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. The scans were ruled to be grossly normal in head and skull anatomy and of adequate imaging quality to obtain geometric measurements. Measurements of the left orbit and eye of each subject were collected with multiple software programs. Images were aligned by medical imaging software (AquariusNET Server ver. 1.8.1.6; TeraRecon, Inc., San Mateo, CA) and measurements were collected from screenshots of the aligned images by ImageJ (developed by Wayne Rasband, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; available at http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/index.html) software. Coordinates along the orbital rim were collected with a separate software program (Amira; Visage Imaging, San Diego, CA). 
With the medical imaging software (TeraRecon), a slab view at maximum thickness was used to align the CT correctly for each subject and a Hounsfield Unit (HU)–based bone window was initially selected for viewing the image (window width [WW] 2200, window level [WL] 200). The anterior–posterior axis was aligned with the crista galli in the axial view (Fig. 1a). The coronal view (window parameters: WW 350, WL 75) was used to align the superior–inferior axis along the falx cerebri (Fig. 1b). Because of former alignment in the other viewing windows, the nasion and sella turcica were visible in the sagittal view (window parameters: WW 2200, WL 200). The axial plane was realigned with the nasion–sella plane (Fig. 1c), an anatomic plane used in an earlier study of the orbit. 27  
Figure 1.
 
Alignment with the (a) crista galli, (b) falx cerebri, and (c) nasion-sella turcica plane. (d) Aligned 3D image used to measure orbital aperture.
Figure 1.
 
Alignment with the (a) crista galli, (b) falx cerebri, and (c) nasion-sella turcica plane. (d) Aligned 3D image used to measure orbital aperture.
The aligned CT images were rendered in three-dimensions (3D) and were optimized with the following parameters: mask 1 (WW 500, WL 400, opacity 100%, right_up linear volume-rendering curve shape) and mask 2 (WW 200, WL 200, opacity 20%, right_recline triangle volume-rendering curve shape). A screenshot of the aligned 3D bone reconstruction was captured, and a grid template was overlaid to collect orbital aperture measurements (Fig. 1d). The grid was rotated so that the horizontal axis was parallel with a line connecting the superior rims of both orbits. The grid was positioned with the left horizontal endpoint on the nasion and the right horizontal endpoint on the lateral edge of the orbit. The 11 vertical lines of the grid were constructed to be equally spaced along the horizontal axis. Twenty-four orbital rim measurements were collected from each of the horizontal and vertical gridlines. The superior orbital rim perimeter was calculated by summing the distances between each of the 12 superior orbital rim measurements. The inferior orbital rim perimeter was calculated using the same method and was summed with the superior orbital rim perimeter, to compute the total orbital rim perimeter. The two segments corresponding to orbital width (OW) and orbital height (OH) are depicted in Figure 1d. For the statistical analysis, these measurements were also normalized to adjust for size. Measurements were normalized by dividing each one by the subject's height in millimeters and multiplying it by 100. This allowed orbital width and height measurements that are relative to the subject's height to be investigated relative to sex and to different ages. 
Further alignment of the images allowed the protrusion and location of the eye to be measured. An abdominal window was selected for viewing the eyeball (window parameters: WW 350, WL 75). In the axial view, the anterior–posterior axis was rotated until it was aligned with the cornea and the center of the optic canal. The axial slice with the most eye protrusion was selected, and the perpendicular (medial–lateral) axis was placed on the edge of the lateral orbital rim, as shown in Figure 2a. Lateral eye protrusion (LP) was measured from the cornea to the axes intersection. This measurement corresponded to the protrusion of the eye relative to the lateral orbital rim. A lateral distance (LD) measurement describing the eye's location relative to the lateral orbital rim was collected by measuring from the lateral edge of the orbit to the axes intersection. The sagittal view of the previous alignment was used to collect superior eye protrusion (SP) and superior distance (SD) measurements (Fig. 2b). A line was drawn from the cornea back through the center of the eye, and another line was drawn connecting the superior and inferior orbital rims (Fig. 2b, lines). Superior eye protrusion was measured from the cornea to the intersection of these two lines to describe protrusion of the eye relative to the superior orbital rim. A superior distance measurement describing the eye's location relative to the superior orbital rim was collected by measuring from the superior edge of the orbit to the intersection of the two white lines. 
Figure 2.
 
(a) Lateral eye protrusion (LP) and lateral distance (LD). (b) Superior eye protrusion (SP) and superior distance (SD).
Figure 2.
 
(a) Lateral eye protrusion (LP) and lateral distance (LD). (b) Superior eye protrusion (SP) and superior distance (SD).
The CT scans were imported into software (Amira; Visage Imaging) to record point coordinate values on the orbital rim. The bony anatomy was rendered in 3D and aligned with the coordinate system of the 3D reconstruction in Figure 1d. As described earlier, the crista galli, falx cerebri, and nasion-sella plane were used to establish a landmark-defined coordinate system for each subject. Four coordinate points were recorded: the medial orbital rim point at the nasion, the lateral orbital rim point horizontally across from the nasion, and the center orbital rim point located superiorly and inferiorly (Fig. 3). The angle of brow protrusion (BP) was calculated by using equation 1, where OH is the orbital height and D is the distance between the superior and inferior coordinates depicted in Figure 3. The formula was chosen so that the superior orbital rim points anterior to the inferior orbital rim point resulted in positive angles.
Figure 3.
 
Brow protrusion angle and medial (M), lateral (L), superior (S), and inferior (I) orbital rim coordinate points.
Figure 3.
 
Brow protrusion angle and medial (M), lateral (L), superior (S), and inferior (I) orbital rim coordinate points.
   
Results
Select subject demographics and ocular and orbital measurements are reported in Table 1. In some subjects, CT scan slices did not extend to the inferior orbit, and it was not possible to collect all the measurements. Missing data were accounted for in the statistical analysis. 
Table 1.
 
Demographics and Ocular and Orbital Measurements
Table 1.
 
Demographics and Ocular and Orbital Measurements
Subject Sex Age Height (cm) OW (mm) OH (mm) LP (mm) LD (mm) SP (mm) SD (mm) BP (deg)
1 M 17 180 36.6 7.7 18.6
2 M 20 172 34.0 29.6 10.2 19.2 4.4 10.5 29.3
3 M 21 175 35.3 33.2 12.0 19.0 4.9 16.3 29.3
4 M 21 185 32.1 31.0 6.1 16.1 1.9 15.0 32.6
5 M 23 177 36.4 32.1 12.6 19.4 3.6 13.5 25.6
6 F 24 162 36.4 35.1 13.1 16.2 3.9 16.7 22.8
7 F 24 152 38.1 28.8 9.0 16.9 1.4 14.7 31.9
8 M 25 177 36.1 32.7 11.4 21.2 2.4 18.3
9 F 29 173 35.1 34.1 9.1 18.5 5.0 16.8 20.1
10 M 31 185 36.1 16.0 18.7
11 F 32 167 40.3 27.5 5.5 22.2 3.0 10.7 27.3
12 M 33 180 37.2 33.3 16.7 17.9 8.0 18.2 26.2
13 F 34 162 36.6 27.7 13.4 17.1 3.5 14.4 28.6
14 M 37 185 37.9 17.0 17.0
15 F 38 157 39.4 33.7 14.0 15.5 6.9 14.7 21.3
16 F 40 172 35.6 35.6 13.7 15.2 4.4 24.2 27.3
17 F 42 157 34.8 30.4 9.4 18.3 6.5 14.9 22.9
18 F 42 160 36.6 12.6 19.0
19 F 42 165 35.1 31.9 12.1 17.4 8.3 14.6 28.7
20 F 43 167 34.4 31.1 11.4 17.3 5.9 16.3
21 F 47 165 36.5 32.2 13.0 17.2 4.2 14.8 20.6
22 M 49 183 38.5 34.5 10.8 20.4 5.0 20.6 37.8
23 F 51 165 38.9 30.7 14.9 16.9 2.2 15.5 34.4
24 F 51 165 36.2 31.4 11.6 18.0 3.9 17.2 22.0
25 F 54 163 36.6 6.7 19.2
26 F 57 172 39.3 34.8 12.2 16.1 5.0 17.4 20.2
27 M 59 185 39.6 36.2 15.5 17.6 6.3 20.6 26.8
28 F 60 149 34.9 33.0 18.7 18.3 13.4 15.4 32.7
29 M 60 190 41.8 34.0 19.7 18.8 11.4 17.9
30 M 60 180 38.5 32.0 12.1 22.0 4.1 16.0 27.6
31 F 60 160 36.6 13.9 16.7 5.3 17.3
32 F 60 157 36.6 34.0 11.5 17.1 5.1 14.3 28.4
33 M 62 166 39.6 29.2 14.4 20.7 2.8 16.9
34 F 63 155 33.4 28.0 11.2 16.8 2.9 15.1 26.5
35 M 65 177 39.4 32.2 14.9 18.1 6.1 16.5 26.9
36 M 66 190 39.5 31.9 10.6 19.4 2.3 18.2 25.9
37 F 66 167 37.6 13.4 17.4
38 F 74 170 36.5 31.5 6.8 18.3 1.1 15.7 30.2
39 F 76 167 36.4 31.9 11.4 19.9 2.1 18.1 20.9
Avg. 45.1 170.2 36.9 32.0 12.2 18.2 4.8 16.3 27.0
Stan. dev. 16.8 10.7 2.1 2.3 3.2 1.7 2.7 2.6 4.5
A multivariate correlation analysis was used to examine relationships between subject demographics (age and subject height) and the ocular and orbital measurements collected (OW, OH, LP, SP, LD, SD, orbital rim perimeters, and height-normalized OW and OH). Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients and P values were computed for all combinations, comparing demographics to measurements, as well as measurements to each other. Results are presented in Table 2 for correlations that were significant (P < 0.05) or mildly significant (P < 0.10). Noteworthy findings included significant positive correlations with age for the raw and height-normalized OW measurements, as well as a mildly significant association between age and the SD measurement. Several measurements (OH, height-normalized OW and OH, SD, and the inferior and total rim perimeters) correlated significantly with subject height, suggesting that subject height is a key factor in explaining variation in orbit anthropometry across individuals. In addition, mild correlations with subject height were identified for the OW and LD measurements. Many of the ocular and orbital measurements correlated significantly with each other. Measurements characterizing orbital aperture (OW, OH, and orbital rim perimeters) were found to correlate significantly with eye protrusion (LP and SP measurements) and location of the eye within the orbit (LD and SD measurements). Eye protrusion measurements (LP, SP) were not only significantly correlated with orbital aperture measurements, but also with the SD measurement describing eye location within the orbit. No correlations with P < 0.10 were identified for the brow protrusion angle. 
Table 2.
 
Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients
Table 2.
 
Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients
Variable by Variable Correlation P
OW Age 0.34 0.03*
OW LP 0.33 0.04*
OW Subject Height 0.27 0.09
Normal OW Subject Height −0.67 <0.001*
Normal OW OW 0.53 <0.001*
Normal OW Age 0.34 0.03*
Normal OW Normal OH 0.34 0.05*
OH SD 0.65 <0.001*
OH LP 0.41 0.02*
OH SP 0.40 0.02*
OH Subject Height 0.36 0.04*
Normal OH OH 0.63 <0.001*
Normal OH LD −0.50 0.004*
Normal OH Subject Height −0.49 0.005*
Normal OH SP 0.43 0.01*
Normal OH LP 0.35 0.05*
LD Subject Height 0.28 0.08
SD Subject Height 0.39 0.02*
SD LP 0.36 0.04*
SD Age 0.30 0.09
SP LP 0.68 <0.001*
Inferior rim perimeter Subject Height 0.55 0.001*
Inferior rim perimeter OW 0.51 0.003*
Inferior rim perimeter LD 0.42 0.02*
Inferior rim perimeter OH 0.31 0.08
Superior rim perimeter OH 0.51 0.003*
Superior rim perimeter Normal OH 0.47 0.007*
Superior rim perimeter SD 0.46 0.007*
Superior rim perimeter Normal OW 0.37 0.02*
Superior rim perimeter OW 0.35 0.03*
Superior rim perimeter LP 0.29 0.07
Superior rim perimeter LD −0.29 0.08
Total rim perimeter OW 0.75 <0.001*
Total rim perimeter Inferior rim perimeter 0.67 <0.001*
Total rim perimeter OH 0.66 <0.001*
Total rim perimeter Superior rim perimeter 0.55 0.001*
Total rim perimeter SD 0.50 0.004*
Total rim perimeter Subject Height 0.47 0.007*
Total rim perimeter LP 0.35 0.05*
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess the effect of the sex of the individual on each of the ocular and orbital measurements. ANOVA F test statistics and P-values are reported in Table 3. P < 0.05 indicates a statistically significant difference in sample means between genders. As Table 3 shows, the lateral distance measurement and inferior orbital rim perimeter vary significantly between males and females. Orbital width and height measurements normalized by subject height vary significantly between the sexes. When these measurements (OW, OH) are not normalized, no significant differences are detected between the sexes, suggesting that normalizing by height unmasks the effect on orbital anthropometry of the sex of the person. 
Table 3.
 
Pattern of Variation in Ocular and Orbital Measurements between the Sexes
Table 3.
 
Pattern of Variation in Ocular and Orbital Measurements between the Sexes
Measurement Male (n = 16) Female (n = 16) F Ratio P
Mean Stan. Dev. Mean Stan. Dev.
OW, mm 37.42 2.44 36.60 1.71 1.55 0.22
OH, mm 32.44 1.89 31.75 2.51 0.71 0.41
Normalized OW 2.08 0.14 2.25 0.13 16.03 <0.001*
Normalized OH 1.80 0.08 1.95 0.15 9.29 0.005*
LP, mm 12.98 3.60 11.69 2.94 1.51 0.23
LD, mm 19.01 1.55 17.63 1.53 7.68 0.009*
SP, mm 4.85 2.64 4.70 2.76 0.02 0.88
SD, mm 16.81 2.75 15.94 2.53 0.87 0.36
BP, deg 28.80 3.81 25.94 4.69 2.71 0.11
Inferior rim perimeter, mm 64.97 3.83 61.37 4.89 4.95 0.03*
Superior rim perimeter, mm 49.30 4.39 50.94 3.79 1.54 0.22
Total rim perimeter, mm 114.74 5.49 112.15 5.44 1.74 0.20
Discussion
The present study presents a systematic method of aligning head CT images and collecting orbital aperture, eye protrusion, eye location, and brow protrusion measurements for comparison across individuals. We documented variation in normal eye and orbit anatomy in 39 subjects. Contrary to previous studies in which variation in surface anatomy was examined by using external measurements and photographs, 2326,2830 in our study, we investigated variation in bony and soft tissue anatomy of the eye and orbit. Only a few studies have been undertaken to collect measurements to quantify orbital geometry and the location of the eye within the orbit. 27,31 The collection of additional measurements was warranted to fully characterize orbit and eye anatomy and quantify variation across individuals. 
The statistical results of this study suggest that the orbit widens with age. The results also show significant relationships between subject height and the orbital aperture and eye location measurements. These findings suggest that variation in orbital anthropometry can be partially attributed to differences in subjects' height and that normalizing by height may reveal other effects on orbit anthropometry such as age, sex, and ethnicity. With orbital width and height normalized by subject height, the statistical analysis showed the significant differences in these measurements between the sexes. Normalized orbital width and height was greater in the females than in the males, suggesting that relative to subject height, the female's orbital aperture is proportionately larger than the male's orbital aperture. However, without normalization, the means of all the ocular and orbital measurements were greater in the males than in the females. Although statistical significance was not reached when comparing each measurement between the sexes, the lateral distance describing eye location and the inferior orbital rim perimeter were both significantly greater in the males than in the females. Future studies with a larger sample size may find significant differences between the sexes for other parameters such as eye and brow protrusion. 
The smaller sample size used in this study may have affected the ability to obtain statistical significance when examining age and sex effects. Contrary to reports in the literature, no significant decrease in eye protrusion was observed with age, but sample size was substantially smaller than the number of subjects in previous work and may not have been sufficient to obtain statistical significance. 23 Ethnic variation was not accounted for in this study, thus the effect of ethnicity on the ocular and orbital measurements could not be assessed at this time. The method developed could be used in future studies to collect measurements for a larger number of subjects and quantify ocular and orbital anthropometry across individuals according to sex and various ages and ethnicities. 
The comprehensive set of measurements collected in this study provides detailed information on orbital geometry, as well as placement of the eye within the orbit. This set of measurements can used for the development of finite element models of the orbit for computational modeling purposes and may be useful in the design of protective equipment for the eye. Although sample size limited the ability to obtain statistically significant relationships regarding orbital anthropometry, the significance of the effect of orbital variation on eye injury has yet to be assessed. Incorporating variation in orbit anthropometry and information about eye location into a finite element model of the human eye, 37 computational simulations will be used to study interaction between the eye and orbit during traumatic impact, to evaluate risk of eye injury and orbital fractures. When normal variation in orbital anthropometry is implemented in a finite element model of the eye, statistically significant variation in injury risk may result. Determining injury risk by quantifying anthropometric variation across individuals would be valuable in mitigating eye injuries. 
Footnotes
 Supported by United States Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory Contract DAAD19-02-D-0001.
Footnotes
 Disclosure: A.A. Weaver, None; K.L. Loftis, None; J.C. Tan, None; S.M. Duma, None; J.D. Stitzel, None
References
McGwin GJr Xie A Owsley C . Rate of eye injury in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123:970–976. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lueder GT . Air bag-associated ocular trauma in children. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:1472–1475. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kuhn F Collins P Morris R Witherspoon CD . Epidemiology of motor vehicle crash-related serious eye injuries. Accid Anal Prev. 1994;26:385–390. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Duma SM Jernigan MV Stitzel JD . The effect of frontal air bags on eye injury patterns in automobile crashes. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:1517–1522. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Duma SM Kress TA Porta DJ . Airbag-induced eye injuries: a report of 25 cases. J Trauma. 1996;41:114–119. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Duma SM Rath AL Jernigan MV Stitzel JD Herring IP . The effects of depowered airbags on eye injuries in frontal automobile crashes. Am J Emerg Med. 2005;23:13–19. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Muller-Jensen K Allmaras W . Eye injuries by safety glass (windshield) (in German). Hefte Unfallheilkd. 1969;99:259–263. [PubMed]
Duma SM Crandall JR . Eye injuries from airbags with seamless module covers. J Trauma. 2000;48:786–789. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Fukagawa K Tsubota K Kimura C . Corneal endothelial cell loss induced by air bags. Ophthalmology. 1993;100:1819–1823. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Heier JS Enzenauer RW Wintermeyer SF Delaney M LaPiana FP . Ocular injuries and diseases at a combat support hospital in support of Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993;111:795–798. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Biehl JW Valdez J Hemady RK Steidl SM Bourke DL . Penetrating eye injury in war. Mil Med. 1999;164:780–784. [PubMed]
Mader TH Aragones JV Chandler AC . Ocular and ocular adnexal injuries treated by United States military ophthalmologists during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Ophthalmology. 1993;100:1462–1467. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Mader TH Carroll RD Slade CS George RK Ritchey JP Neville SP . Ocular war injuries of the Iraqi insurgency, January-September 2004. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:97–104. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Thach AB Johnson AJ Carroll RB . Severe eye injuries in the war in Iraq. 2003–2005. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:377–382. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Weichel ED Colyer MH Ludlow SE Bower KS Eiseman AS . Combat ocular trauma visual outcomes during Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:2235–2245. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hecker S . More than half a million Americans suffer eye injuries from sports-related accidents: lack of proper eye protection can lead to painful injuries, vision loss and even blindness. Vision News. August 2007:1–2.
Cassen JH . Ocular trauma. Hawaii Med J. 1997;56:292–294. [PubMed]
Rodriguez JO Lavina AM Agarwal A . Prevention and treatment of common eye injuries in sports. Am Fam Phys. 2003;67:1481–1488.
Chisholm L . Ocular injury due to blunt trauma. Appl Ther. 1969;11:597–598. [PubMed]
Pardhan S Shacklock P Weatherill J . Sport-related eye trauma: a survey of the presentation of eye injuries to a casualty clinic and the use of protective eye-wear. Eye (Lond). 1995;9:50–53. [PubMed]
Vinger PF Sparks JJ Mussack KR Dondero J Jeffers JB . A program to prevent eye injuries in paintball. Sports Vision. 1997;33:33–40.
Thach AB Ward TP Hollifield RD . Ocular injuries from paintball pellets. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:533–537. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ahmadi H Shams PN Davies NP Joshi N Kelly MH . Age-related changes in the normal sagittal relationship between globe and orbit. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2007;60:246–250. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bolanos Gil de Montes F Perez Resinas FM Rodriguez Garcia M Gonzalez Ortiz M . Exophthalmometry in Mexican adults. Rev Invest Clin. 1999;51:341–343. [PubMed]
Pivnick EK Rivas ML Tolley EA Smith SD Presbury GJ . Interpupillary distance in a normal black population. Clin Genet. 1999;55:182–191. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
van den Bosch WA Leenders I Mulder P . Topographic anatomy of the eyelids, and the effects of sex and age. Br J Ophthalmol. 1999;83:347–352. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Pessa JE Chen Y . Curve analysis of the aging orbital aperture. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;109:751–755; discussion 756–760. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Barretto RL Mathog RH . Orbital measurement in black and white populations. Laryngoscope. 1999;109:1051–1054. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Dunsky IL . Normative data for hertel exophthalmometry in a normal adult black population. Optom Vis Sci. 1992;69:562–564. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Pryor HB . Objective measurement of interpupillary distance. Pediatrics. 1969;44:973–977. [PubMed]
Pessa JE Desvigne LD Lambros VS Nimerick J Sugunan B Zadoo VP . Changes in ocular globe-to-orbital rim position with age: implications for aesthetic blepharoplasty of the lower eyelids. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1999;23:337–342. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Shufelt C Fraser-Bell S Ying-Lai M Torres M Varma R . Refractive error, ocular biometry, and lens opalescence in an adult population: the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:4450–4460. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Song WK Lew H Yoon JS Oh MJ Lee SY . Role of medial orbital wall morphologic properties in orbital blow-out fractures. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50:495–499. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ye J Kook KH Lee SY . Evaluation of computer-based volume measurement and porous polyethylene channel implants in reconstruction of large orbital wall fractures. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:509–513. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Regensburg NI Kok PH Zonneveld FW . A new and validated CT-based method for the calculation of orbital soft tissue volumes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49:1758–1762. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Forbes G Gehring DG Gorman CA Brennan MD Jackson IT . Volume measurements of normal orbital structures by computed tomographic analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1985;145:149–154. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Stitzel JD Duma SM Cormier JM Herring IP . A nonlinear finite element model of the eye with experimental validation for the prediction of globe rupture. Stapp Car Crash J. 2002;46:81–102. [PubMed]
Figure 1.
 
Alignment with the (a) crista galli, (b) falx cerebri, and (c) nasion-sella turcica plane. (d) Aligned 3D image used to measure orbital aperture.
Figure 1.
 
Alignment with the (a) crista galli, (b) falx cerebri, and (c) nasion-sella turcica plane. (d) Aligned 3D image used to measure orbital aperture.
Figure 2.
 
(a) Lateral eye protrusion (LP) and lateral distance (LD). (b) Superior eye protrusion (SP) and superior distance (SD).
Figure 2.
 
(a) Lateral eye protrusion (LP) and lateral distance (LD). (b) Superior eye protrusion (SP) and superior distance (SD).
Table 1.
 
Demographics and Ocular and Orbital Measurements
Table 1.
 
Demographics and Ocular and Orbital Measurements
Subject Sex Age Height (cm) OW (mm) OH (mm) LP (mm) LD (mm) SP (mm) SD (mm) BP (deg)
1 M 17 180 36.6 7.7 18.6
2 M 20 172 34.0 29.6 10.2 19.2 4.4 10.5 29.3
3 M 21 175 35.3 33.2 12.0 19.0 4.9 16.3 29.3
4 M 21 185 32.1 31.0 6.1 16.1 1.9 15.0 32.6
5 M 23 177 36.4 32.1 12.6 19.4 3.6 13.5 25.6
6 F 24 162 36.4 35.1 13.1 16.2 3.9 16.7 22.8
7 F 24 152 38.1 28.8 9.0 16.9 1.4 14.7 31.9
8 M 25 177 36.1 32.7 11.4 21.2 2.4 18.3
9 F 29 173 35.1 34.1 9.1 18.5 5.0 16.8 20.1
10 M 31 185 36.1 16.0 18.7
11 F 32 167 40.3 27.5 5.5 22.2 3.0 10.7 27.3
12 M 33 180 37.2 33.3 16.7 17.9 8.0 18.2 26.2
13 F 34 162 36.6 27.7 13.4 17.1 3.5 14.4 28.6
14 M 37 185 37.9 17.0 17.0
15 F 38 157 39.4 33.7 14.0 15.5 6.9 14.7 21.3
16 F 40 172 35.6 35.6 13.7 15.2 4.4 24.2 27.3
17 F 42 157 34.8 30.4 9.4 18.3 6.5 14.9 22.9
18 F 42 160 36.6 12.6 19.0
19 F 42 165 35.1 31.9 12.1 17.4 8.3 14.6 28.7
20 F 43 167 34.4 31.1 11.4 17.3 5.9 16.3
21 F 47 165 36.5 32.2 13.0 17.2 4.2 14.8 20.6
22 M 49 183 38.5 34.5 10.8 20.4 5.0 20.6 37.8
23 F 51 165 38.9 30.7 14.9 16.9 2.2 15.5 34.4
24 F 51 165 36.2 31.4 11.6 18.0 3.9 17.2 22.0
25 F 54 163 36.6 6.7 19.2
26 F 57 172 39.3 34.8 12.2 16.1 5.0 17.4 20.2
27 M 59 185 39.6 36.2 15.5 17.6 6.3 20.6 26.8
28 F 60 149 34.9 33.0 18.7 18.3 13.4 15.4 32.7
29 M 60 190 41.8 34.0 19.7 18.8 11.4 17.9
30 M 60 180 38.5 32.0 12.1 22.0 4.1 16.0 27.6
31 F 60 160 36.6 13.9 16.7 5.3 17.3
32 F 60 157 36.6 34.0 11.5 17.1 5.1 14.3 28.4
33 M 62 166 39.6 29.2 14.4 20.7 2.8 16.9
34 F 63 155 33.4 28.0 11.2 16.8 2.9 15.1 26.5
35 M 65 177 39.4 32.2 14.9 18.1 6.1 16.5 26.9
36 M 66 190 39.5 31.9 10.6 19.4 2.3 18.2 25.9
37 F 66 167 37.6 13.4 17.4
38 F 74 170 36.5 31.5 6.8 18.3 1.1 15.7 30.2
39 F 76 167 36.4 31.9 11.4 19.9 2.1 18.1 20.9
Avg. 45.1 170.2 36.9 32.0 12.2 18.2 4.8 16.3 27.0
Stan. dev. 16.8 10.7 2.1 2.3 3.2 1.7 2.7 2.6 4.5
Table 2.
 
Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients
Table 2.
 
Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients
Variable by Variable Correlation P
OW Age 0.34 0.03*
OW LP 0.33 0.04*
OW Subject Height 0.27 0.09
Normal OW Subject Height −0.67 <0.001*
Normal OW OW 0.53 <0.001*
Normal OW Age 0.34 0.03*
Normal OW Normal OH 0.34 0.05*
OH SD 0.65 <0.001*
OH LP 0.41 0.02*
OH SP 0.40 0.02*
OH Subject Height 0.36 0.04*
Normal OH OH 0.63 <0.001*
Normal OH LD −0.50 0.004*
Normal OH Subject Height −0.49 0.005*
Normal OH SP 0.43 0.01*
Normal OH LP 0.35 0.05*
LD Subject Height 0.28 0.08
SD Subject Height 0.39 0.02*
SD LP 0.36 0.04*
SD Age 0.30 0.09
SP LP 0.68 <0.001*
Inferior rim perimeter Subject Height 0.55 0.001*
Inferior rim perimeter OW 0.51 0.003*
Inferior rim perimeter LD 0.42 0.02*
Inferior rim perimeter OH 0.31 0.08
Superior rim perimeter OH 0.51 0.003*
Superior rim perimeter Normal OH 0.47 0.007*
Superior rim perimeter SD 0.46 0.007*
Superior rim perimeter Normal OW 0.37 0.02*
Superior rim perimeter OW 0.35 0.03*
Superior rim perimeter LP 0.29 0.07
Superior rim perimeter LD −0.29 0.08
Total rim perimeter OW 0.75 <0.001*
Total rim perimeter Inferior rim perimeter 0.67 <0.001*
Total rim perimeter OH 0.66 <0.001*
Total rim perimeter Superior rim perimeter 0.55 0.001*
Total rim perimeter SD 0.50 0.004*
Total rim perimeter Subject Height 0.47 0.007*
Total rim perimeter LP 0.35 0.05*
Table 3.
 
Pattern of Variation in Ocular and Orbital Measurements between the Sexes
Table 3.
 
Pattern of Variation in Ocular and Orbital Measurements between the Sexes
Measurement Male (n = 16) Female (n = 16) F Ratio P
Mean Stan. Dev. Mean Stan. Dev.
OW, mm 37.42 2.44 36.60 1.71 1.55 0.22
OH, mm 32.44 1.89 31.75 2.51 0.71 0.41
Normalized OW 2.08 0.14 2.25 0.13 16.03 <0.001*
Normalized OH 1.80 0.08 1.95 0.15 9.29 0.005*
LP, mm 12.98 3.60 11.69 2.94 1.51 0.23
LD, mm 19.01 1.55 17.63 1.53 7.68 0.009*
SP, mm 4.85 2.64 4.70 2.76 0.02 0.88
SD, mm 16.81 2.75 15.94 2.53 0.87 0.36
BP, deg 28.80 3.81 25.94 4.69 2.71 0.11
Inferior rim perimeter, mm 64.97 3.83 61.37 4.89 4.95 0.03*
Superior rim perimeter, mm 49.30 4.39 50.94 3.79 1.54 0.22
Total rim perimeter, mm 114.74 5.49 112.15 5.44 1.74 0.20
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×