Presenting clinical characteristics of open globe injuries in ocular trauma: baseline analysis of cases in the ASCOT national clinical trial.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The Adjunctive Steroid Combination in Ocular Trauma (ASCOT) trial is a unique pragmatic, multi-centre, patient and assessor masked, randomised controlled trial. We evaluate the clinical characteristics and pathology of this large trial cohort of patients with open globe injuries undergoing vitreoretinal surgery, including the associations between patient characteristics and their baseline vision. SUBJECTS/METHODS: We (i) summarise demographics, injury history and ocular history of the 280 participants recruited into the ASCOT trial using descriptive statistics; (ii) analyse the national and seasonal variation across England and Scotland in these participant characteristics; and (iii) explore the associations between participant demographic, trauma history, ocular history and presenting baseline visual acuity (measured using the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study, ETDRS) using multivariable regression analyses. RESULTS: The majority of participants with open globe penetrating injuries were of white ethnicity (233, 84%), male (246, 88%), with a median age of 43 years (IQR 30-55 years). There was considerable variability in presenting visual acuity with 75% unable to read any letters on the ETDRS chart, whilst the median ETDRS letter score was 58 (IQR 24-80) for those who could read ≥1 letter. The most common causes of injury were workplace related (31%) or interpersonal violence (24%). Previous eye surgery, visual axis corneal scar, lens status, hyphaemia and vitreous haemorrhaging were found to be associated with presenting vision as measured by the ETDRS chart. CONCLUSION: The ASCOT trial provides valuable insights into the spectrum of pathology of patients with open globe eye injuries undergoing vitreoretinal surgery. The identified causes of injury and clinical presentation of the cases will help in training and resource planning to deal with these often challenging surgical cases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT No. 014-002193-37. HTA Project 12/35/64.

Effect of Face-Down Positioning vs Support-the-Break Positioning After Macula-Involving Retinal Detachment Repair: The PostRD Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: A lack of consensus exists with regard to the optimal positioning regimen for patients after macula-involving retinal detachment (RD) repair. Objective: To evaluate the effect of face-down positioning vs support-the-break positioning on retinal displacement and distortion after macula-involving RD repair. Design, Setting, and Participants: A prospective 6-month single-masked randomized clinical trial was conducted at a multicenter tertiary referral setting from May 16, 2016, to May 1, 2018. Inclusion criteria were fovea-involving rhegmatogenous RD; central visual loss within 14 days; patients undergoing primary vitrectomy and gas surgery, under local anesthetic; patients able to give written informed consent; and 18 years old and older. Analysis was conducted following a modified intention-to-treat principle, with patients experiencing a redetachment or failure to attach the macula being excluded from analysis. Interventions: Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive face-down positioning or support-the-break positioning for a 24-hour period postoperatively. Positioning compliance was not monitored. Main Outcomes and Measures: The proportion of patients with retinal displacement on autofluorescence imaging at 6 months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included proportion of patients with displacement at 2 months; amplitude of displacement at 2 and 6 months; corrected Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study visual acuity; objective Distortion Scores; and quality of life questionnaire scores at 6 months. Results: Of the 262 randomized patients, 239 were analyzed (171 male [71.5%]; mean [SD] age, 60.8 [9.8] years). At 6 months, retinal displacement was detected in 42 of 100 (42%) in the face-down positioning group vs 58 of 103 (56%) in the support-the-break positioning group (odds ratio, 1.77; 95%CI, 1.01-3.11; P = .04). The degree of displacement was lower in the face-down group. Groups were similar in corrected visual acuity (face-down, 74 letters vs support-the-break, 75 letters), objective D Chart Distortion Scores (range: 0, no distortion to 41.6, severe distortion; with face-down at 4.5 vs support-the-break at 4.2), and quality of life scores (face-down 89.3 vs support-the-break 89.0) at 2 and 6 months. Retinal redetachment rate was similar in both groups (face-down group, 12.2% and support-the-break group, 13.7%). Retinal folds were less common in the face-down positioning group vs the support-the-break positioning group (5.3% vs 13.5%, respectively; odds ratio, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.2-7.4; P = .03). Binocular diplopia was more common in the support-the-break group compared with the face-down positioning group (7.6% vs 1.5%, respectively; odds ratio, 5.3; 95% CI, 1.3-24.6; P = .03). Amplitude of displacement was associated with worse visual acuity (r = -0.5; P < .001) and distortion (r = 0.28; P = .008). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, findings suggest that face-down positioning was associated with a reduction in the rate and amplitude of postoperative retinal displacement after macula-involving RD repair and with a reduction in binocular diplopia. No association was found with visual acuity or postoperative distortion. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02748538.