Evaluating the temperature effects of ice and heat tests on ptosis due to Myasthenia Gravis

8Citations
Citations of this article
27Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Aims: The aims of this study are as follows: (1) to describe a standardised methodology for the ice test, and where necessary a heat test; (2) to determine the effects of local cooling vs. heating on ptosis in myasthenia gravis (MG) patients. Methods: Twenty-three MG patients with ptosis were identified from a tertiary referral neuroimmunology clinic, seventeen with significant ptosis ≥2 mm. Latex party balloons were filled with ice and cold tap water for the ice test, or with water heated to 45 °C for the heat test. Each test was performed for 2 min, with ruler measurement and photographs taken of the palpebral aperture before and immediately after each test. Results: This standardised method was efficient in a clinical setting while maintaining efficacy. In all 23 patients, the mean improvements in ptosis with the ice, rest, and heat tests were 2.3 (±1.5) mm, 1.3 (±1.1) mm, and 0.33 (±1.4) mm respectively. In the 17 patients with significant ptosis, the mean improvements in ptosis with the ice, rest, and heat tests were 2.9 (±1.2) mm, 1.8 (±0.92) mm, and 0.83 (±1.4) mm, respectively. In these 17 patients, the ice test improved ptosis by 1.3 mm more than rest (p < 0.0001). The heat test improved ptosis by 1.1 mm less than rest (p = 0.0013). The ice test improved ptosis by 2.3 mm more than the heat test (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: The standardised methodology of ice and heat testing was safe, easily reproducible and effective. We confirm that temperature had a significant effect on ptosis in MG, and therefore refute the notion that measured changes are purely due to the associated rest.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Marinos, E., Buzzard, K., Fraser, C. L., & Reddel, S. (2018). Evaluating the temperature effects of ice and heat tests on ptosis due to Myasthenia Gravis. Eye (Basingstoke), 32(8), 1387–1391. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-018-0101-8

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free