Trabeculectomy training in England: are we safe at training? Two year surgical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To define the safety profile of trainee trabeculectomy surgery in the United Kingdom. Surgical exposure for trainees in England is limited due to service requirements, the European working time directive constraints and increasing sub-specialisation of glaucoma surgery. Limited knowledge exists on the outcomes of supervised glaucoma surgery. The aim is to determine the safety of supervised trabeculectomy surgery performed by trainee ophthalmologists. METHODS: Retrospective case note review of all patients that had trabeculectomy surgery with MMC by consultant and trainee surgeons across multiple UK centres. All eyes have 2-year follow up. Success was determined using WGA guidelines. Two-tailed p values were obtained using Fisher's exact test to ascertain statistical significance between groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: intraocular pressure, visual acuity, success and failure rates. RESULTS: 324 eyes were reviewed. 211 (66.4%) cases were performed by glaucoma consultants, 107(33.6%) by trainee ophthalmologists. The majority of eyes in each group were undergoing surgery for POAG. Post-operative IOP control showed no significant difference between consultant and trainee groups at year 1 and year 2. Success rates showed no significant difference between consultant and trainee cases. Failure rates at year 1 showed a significant difference between the two groups. No significant difference was seen at year 2. The trainee group had significantly more complications, when compared with the consultant group. Snellen visual acuity loss was not statistically significant between the two groups at the 2 year time point. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of supervised trainee trabeculectomy compare favourably with consultant cases after 2 year follow up. Trainee cases had higher complication rates than consultant cases. Bleb leaks are a common complication of trainee cases, where closer supervision may be required. There is potential for surgical simulation to help increase the success of such cases. These findings may encourage trainee participation in glaucoma surgery.

Longitudinal glaucoma screening for siblings of patients with primary open angle glaucoma: the Nottingham Family Glaucoma Screening Study.

AIMS: To assess the prevalence and cumulative incidence of open angle glaucoma (OAG) in a cohort group of siblings of OAG probands. METHODS: Between 1994 and 2003, a group of siblings of OAG probands underwent both initial and follow up standardised ophthalmic examinations. Siblings were classified as "definite glaucoma" (primary OAG (POAG) and normal tension glaucoma (NTG)), "glaucoma suspects" (NTG suspects or ocular hypertension (OHT)), and normal. The prevalence and cumulative incidence of OAG over the follow up interval were calculated. RESULTS: At the initial study, 271 siblings (mean age 63.6 years; female to male ratio 1.2) from 156 probands were examined. 32 (11.8%) were classified as definite glaucoma and 15 (5.5%) as suspects. In the follow up study, 157 of the 224 "normal" siblings from the initial study were examined (mean interval from initial study 7.0 (SD 1.0) years). 11 (7%) were classified as definite glaucoma and 30 (19.1%) as suspects. There were significant trends of increasing prevalence and incidence of OAG with age and a lifetime risk estimated at approximately 20% by age 70. CONCLUSION: Siblings of glaucoma patients have an increased risk of developing glaucoma and the risk increases with age. An effective and repeated screening programme should be considered for this high risk group.

Eyetrack (ET) vs the conventional paper record (CPR): a study comparing the accuracy and speed of data retrieval from glaucoma patient records.

PURPOSE: To compare patient data retrieval between electronic patient record systems (Eyetrack) and conventional paper records (CPRs). METHODS: A total of 20 long term glaucoma patient records held on Eyetrack were randomised into two collections with 10 CPRs and 10 Eyetrack records in each collection. The Eyetrack records of one collection were the CPRs of the other collection and vice versa. Four doctors, as two groups, were assessed on a separate collection of records. The time taken to answer 10 questions and the accuracy were assessed. Comparison was made of the answers between the two formats. A month later each group was assessed on the 10 CPRs of the other collection. An expert Eyetrack user was assessed on only the 20 Eyetrack notes. Comparison was made between the 20 CPRs the doctors were assessed on and the 20 eyetrack records. RESULTS: In the first comparison, the mean time for all the doctors to answer the questions on a CPR was 324.4(+/-106.0) s compared to 104.8(+/-34.0) s for Eyetrack(Mann-Whitney, P<0.01). Mean accuracy for a CPR was 84.0%(+/-13.0%) compared to 98.0%(+/-4.0%) for Eyetrack(Mann-Whitney, P<0.01). Comparing the expert Eyetrack user with the CPR showed a mean time for Eyetrack of 96.6(+/-34.8) s compared with 283.7(+/-63.9) s for CPR(Mann-Whitney, P<0.0001). Mean accuracy for Eyetrack was 97.5%(+/-7.2%) compared to 82.0%(+/-8.7%) for CPRs(Mann-Whitney, P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: An improvement of 3 min 40 s per record was observed with Eyetrack. Accuracy was also improved. Similar results were also found comparing an expert Eyetrack user with CPRs.