A cross-over, randomised feasibility study of digitally-printed versus hand-painted artificial eyes in adults (PERSONAL-EYE-S): health economic findings.

Ronaldson, S.; Coleman, E.; Woodward, A.; Zoltie, T.; Bartlett, P.; Wilson, L.; Archer, T.; Kawalek, J.; Boele, F.; Chang, B.; Kalantzis, G.; Theaker, M.; El-Hindy, N.; Walshaw, E.; Gout, T.; Watson, J.

A cross-over, randomised feasibility study of digitally-printed versus hand-painted artificial eyes in adults (PERSONAL-EYE-S): health economic findings.

All Authors

Ronaldson, S.

Coleman, E.

Woodward, A.

Zoltie, T.

Bartlett, P.

Wilson, L.

Archer, T.

Kawalek, J.

Boele, F.

Chang, B.

Show 6 more

LTHT Author

Bartlett, Paul
Wilson, Laura
Archer, Tom
Chang, Bernard
Kalantzis, George
El-Hindy, Nabil
Walshaw, Emma
Gout, Taras

LTHT Department

Leeds Dental Institute
Dental & Maxillofacial Radiology
Artificial Eye Service
Head & Neck
Ophthalmology

Non Medic

Prosthetist
Clinical Photographer

Publication Date

2025

Item Type

Journal Article

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Technology advances mean alternatives to hand-painted artificial eyes are possible, but the feasibility of conducting a large-scale trial is unknown. The aim was to assess the feasibility of collecting healthcare resource use and associated costs needed to undertake a large-scale randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hand-painted artificial eyes with digitally-printed artificial eyes. METHODS: Participants wore a digitally-printed artificial eye and a hand-painted artificial eye, for two weeks each, in a random order. Individual patient-level data was used to explore health outcomes (EQ-5D-5L) and resource use. Costs of the two artificial eye services were collected. A full economic evaluation was not conducted. An appropriate economic evaluation framework was developed to identify the relevant health economic data necessary for a future full trial. RESULTS: Thirty-five participants were randomised. Response rates were 97-100% for the EQ-5D-5L. Resource use questions were less well completed: 54% complete responses at baseline, 40% partial responses and 6% missing/invalid responses. The two follow-up points had similar rates. Eye services cost data were well completed. Mean utility was 0.77 after wearing the hand-painted eye and 0.83 after the digitally-printed eye. Average manufacturing times were 294 min (digitally-printed) and 355 min (hand-painted). Remake appointments were needed for digitally-printed eyes only. Estimated cost for the digitally-printed eye service is 404 and 347 for the hand-painted eye. Time between fitting and final evaluation was 56 days (digitally-printed eye) and 60 days (hand-painted). Results should be interpreted with caution, as estimates were based on a small sample. CONCLUSION: It was possible to collect EQ-5D-5L, healthcare resource use and manufacturing times allowing a costing to be calculated. Thus, a large-scale RCT with full cost-effectiveness analysis would feasible. Refinements are suggested. Future economic analysis should consider how best to evaluate the service, possibility with modelling rather than within-trial analysis only. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN85921622.