SURGICAL OUTCOMES OF PARS PLANA VITRECTOMY FOR INTRAOCULAR COMPLICATIONS RELATED TO VASOPROLIFERATIVE TUMOR OF THE RETINA.

PURPOSE: To investigate the safety and efficacy of vitrectomy pars plana vitrectomy in managing intraocular complications relating to vasoproliferative tumors of the retina (VPL). METHODS: Retrospective study. 17 patients with VPL who underwent vitrectomy at Sheffield Teaching Hospital NHS Trust from 2005 to 2020 were included. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, intraoperative data, and surgical outcomes were collected and evaluated. RESULTS: The mean age was 52 years. Indications for pars plana vitrectomy included epiretinal membrane (n = 7), vitreous hemorrhage (n = 5), retinal detachment (n = 3), diagnostic (n = 1), and others (n = 1). After pars plana vitrectomy, 14/17 (82.4%) have stabilized vision and 3/17 (17.6%) deteriorated. Subgroup analysis of epiretinal membrane peel had good outcomes with 6/7 (85.7%) noticing improvement or stabilization of symptoms and mean logarithm of minimal angle of resolution visual acuity improved from 0.719 [6/30] ± 0.267 [6/12] to 0.476 [6/19] ± 0.271 [6/12]. Patients undergoing surgery for vitreous hemorrhage also had good outcomes with resolution (and no recurrence) of the hemorrhage in 3/5 (60%) and 5/5 (100%) with one or more surgeries, respectively. Outcomes for retinal detachment surgery were logarithm of minimal angle of resolution 2.126 [HM] ± 0.301 [6/12] preoperatively and 1.185 [6/95] ± 0.522 [6/19] postoperatively, with one recurrence of retinal detachment. In the epiretinal membrane group, three patients had adjunctive treatment for VPL intraoperatively and four patients had none, and no difference found between the two groups in outcome or complications. Tumor with thickness of ≥2 mm exhibited inferior visual outcomes compared with <2 mm ( P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This is one of the largest data sets in looking at outcomes of vitrectomy for complications of VPL. Pars plana vitrectomy is effective and safe in managing VPL-related intraocular complications with good outcomes and a low rate of complications, especially for patients with epiretinal membrane and vitreous hemorrhage.

Unwrapped hydroxyapatite orbital implants: our experience in 347 cases.

OBJECTIVES: To report the results of a large case series of enucleations with primary insertion of an unwrapped hydroxyapatite (HA) orbital implant. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive enucleations with primary orbital (HA) implant insertion performed at the Scottish Ocular Oncology Service, Glasgow between 1990 and 2014. The unwrapped hydroxyapatite orbital implant was placed in the posterior portion of the socket and recti muscles sutured end-to-end over the implant. RESULTS: Out of 347 consecutive enucleations, the indication for enucleation was tumour-related pathology in 59.7% and painful blind eye in 40.3%. Majority (70%) received an implant of 22-mm diameter. At an average follow-up of 3.5 years, complications included post-enucleation socket syndrome (11.5%), chronic discharge (9.2%), chronic pain (4.3%), recurrent conjunctival infection (2.3%),conjunctival cysts (2%), contracted socket (1.4%), implant exposure (1.2%), haematoma (0.6%) and ill-fitting prosthesis (0.6%). Implant exposure (1.2%, n = 4) occurred at a mean of 4.5 months post surgery and was managed by temporalis fascia graft (n = 1), tarsoconjunctival flap (n = 1), implant removal (n = 1) and observation (n = 1). Overall, 9.8% of patients needed further surgery including lower lid tightening (4.3%), ptosis repair (2.3%), conjunctival cyst excision (1.2%), fornix reconstruction (1.2%), graft/flap for exposure (0.6%) and implant removal (0.3%). CONCLUSIONS: A low rate of implant exposure indicates that absence of wrapping material around hydroxyapatite orbital implants does not compromise surgical outcomes and has the added benefit of reduced surgical time and avoidance of complications from wrapping materials. Posterior implant placement and end-to-end recti suturing contribute to the success of the procedure.

QUIET PLEASE! Effect of distraction on simulated posterior segment surgical performance.

PURPOSE: To determine the effect of distraction on posterior segment surgical performance using a virtual reality simulator in expert and novice ophthalmic surgeons. METHODS: Twenty subjects were given 6 min to read an unpublished research paper and then were randomized into two groups. Group 1 subjects were allowed 3 min to complete a standardized vitreoretinal simulated task undistracted. Group 2 subjects were asked six questions on the research paper whilst completing the same task. Each subject then performed the alternate scenario. Finally, all participants were asked six questions on the research paper whilst not operating. RESULTS: There was no evidence of a difference in the odometer values (p = 0.127), cognitive task score (p = 0.390) or overall surgical task scores (p = 0.113) between the two groups. The time taken by the distracted group was significantly greater (95% CI -26.03 to -1.67, t-test p = 0.028). CONCLUSION: Distraction significantly increases the time taken to perform a simulated vitreoretinal surgical task for all grades of surgeon. More studies are required to understand the impact on different types of distraction on surgical performance.

Endonasal versus external dacryocystorhinostomy for nasolacrimal duct obstruction.

BACKGROUND: A dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) procedure aims to restore drainage of tears by bypassing a blockage in the nasolacrimal duct, through the creation of a bony ostium that allows communication between the lacrimal sac and the nasal cavity. It can be performed using endonasal or external approaches. The comparative success rates of these two approaches have not yet been established and this review aims to evaluate the relevant up-to-date research. OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of this review is to compare the success rates of endonasal DCR with that of external DCR. The secondary aim is to compare the complication rates between the two procedures. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2016, Issue 8), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to 22 August 2016), Embase (January 1980 to 22 August 2016), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to 22 August 2016), Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Science (CPCI-S) (January 1990 to 22 August 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 22 August 2016. We requested or examined relevant conference proceedings for appropriate trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing endonasal and external DCRs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and extracted data on reported outcomes. We attempted to contact investigators to clarify the methodological quality of the studies. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included two trials in this review. One trial from Finland compared laser-assisted endonasal DCR with external DCR, and one trial from India compared mechanical endonasal DCR (using punch forceps) with external DCR. The trials were poorly reported and it was difficult to judge the extent to which bias had been avoided.Anatomic success was defined as the demonstration of a patent lacrimal passage on syringing, or endoscopic visualisation of fluorescein dye at the nasal opening of the anastomoses after a period of at least six months following surgery. Subjective success was defined as the resolution of symptoms of watering following surgery after a period of at least six months. Both included trials used anatomic patency demonstrated by irrigation as a measure of anatomic success. Different effects were seen in these two trials (I2 = 76%). People receiving laser-assisted endonasal DCR were less likely to have a successful operation compared with external DCR (63% versus 91%; risk ratio (RR) 0.69, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.52 to 0.92; 64 participants). There was little or no difference in success comparing mechanical endonasal DCR and external DCR (90% in both groups; RR 1.00, CI 0.81 to 1.23; 40 participants). We judged this evidence on success to be very low-certainty, downgrading for risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency. The trial from Finland also assessed subjective improvement in symptoms following surgery. Resolution of symptoms of watering in outdoor conditions was reported by 84% of the participants in the external DCR group and 59% of those in the laser-assisted endonasal DCR group (RR 0.70, CI 0.51 to 0.97; 64 participants, low-certainty evidence).There were no cases of intraoperative bleeding in any participant in the trial that compared laser-assisted endonasal DCR to external DCR. This was in contrast to the trial comparing mechanical endonasal DCR to external DCR in which 45% of participants in both groups experienced intraoperative bleeding (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.98; 40 participants). We judged this evidence on intraoperative bleeding to be very low-certainty, downgrading for risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency.There were only two cases of postoperative bleeding, both in the external DCR group (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.10; participants = 104; studies = 2). There were only two cases of wound infection/gaping, again both in the external DCR group (RR 0.20, CI 0.01 to 3.92; participants = 40; studies = 1). We judged this evidence on complications to be very low-certainty, downgrading one level for risk of bias and two levels for imprecision due to the very low number of cases. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is uncertainty as to the relative effects of endonasal and external DCR. Differences in effect seen in the two trials included in this review may be due to variations in the endonasal technique, but may also be due to other differences between the trials. Future larger RCTs are required to further assess the success and complication rates of endonasal and external DCR. Different techniques of endonasal DCR should also be assessed, as the choice of endonasal technique can influence the outcome. Strict outcome criteria should be adopted to assess functional and anatomical outcomes with a minimal follow-up of six months.

Diagnostic criteria for limbal stem cell deficiency-a systematic literature review.

The diagnosis of limbal stem cell deficiency (LSCD) is often based on clinical manifestations with or without the use of tests to demonstrate the presence of goblet cells or of specific epithelial markers on the corneolimbal surface. This systematic review looks at the various diagnostic methods used in the diagnosis of LSCD in published interventional studies. The design is a systematic literature review. We did a systematic search on MEDLINE and PUBMED for articles published in English between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2013. We collected data on diagnostic methods used to diagnose LSCD (clinical findings, impression cytology, immunohistochemistry for various epithelial markers, or in vivo confocal microscopy). Forty-six studies (mostly retrospective/interventional case series) met the inclusion criteria. All of the studies used clinical features as evidence of LSCD: discomfort, impaired vision, irregular epithelium, unstable tear film, persistent epithelial defects, scarring, fibrovascular pannus, neovascularization, keratinization, calcification, and opacification of the cornea. Eighteen studies (39.1%) used an additional test for the diagnosis; 17 studies (37.0%) used impression cytology for goblet cells, 4 studies (8.7%) used immunohistochemistry for epithelial markers, and 2 studies (4.3%) use in vivo confocal microscopy. The diagnosis of LSCD was made in most cases on clinical grounds alone. In some studies, diagnostic tests were used, but these varied considerably from study to study. Comparison of effectiveness of various interventions requires standardized diagnostic methods. Consensus on the diagnostic criteria for LSCD is essential and needs to be reached by the interested care providers.