PURPOSE: Systematically review and categorize the methods used to assess socket and prosthetic motility in anophthalmic patients following enucleation or evisceration. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from inception through September 2024. Studies reporting qualitative or quantitative assessments of motility in anophthalmic sockets or ocular prostheses were included. Motility assessment methods were categorized as qualitative (descriptive or graded clinical evaluation) or quantitative (numerical measurements in millimeters, degrees, or objective tracking systems). RESULTS: Thirty-five studies encompassing 1,819 patients met inclusion criteria. Nineteen studies used qualitative assessment methods, including subjective observation, graded scales based on cardinal gaze positions, or comparison with the contralateral eye. Sixteen studies employed quantitative techniques, such as the Kestenbaum limbus test, Lister perimeter measurements, conjunctival or limbal markings, photographic image analysis, infrared eye-tracking systems, and magnetic search-coil technology. Considerable heterogeneity was observed in measurement techniques, reporting standards, timing of assessment, and distinction between socket and prosthetic motility. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variability exists in the methods used to assess motility in anophthalmic sockets, limiting comparability across studies. Establishing standardized, feasible, and reproducible assessment approaches may improve outcome reporting and facilitate meaningful comparisons in future oculoplastic research.
Alnahdi et al. (2026) studied this question.