Intracorneal ring segment implantation in advanced Keratoconus.

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes of intracorneal ring segment (ICRS) implantation in eyes with advanced vs. mild/moderate keratoconus (KCN). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 141 eyes of 111 patients with KCN who underwent ICRS implantation. Preoperative maximum keratometry (Kmax) was <57 diopters (D) in 70 eyes and >57 D in 71 eyes. Postoperatively, corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), Kmax, and intraoperative and postoperative complications were assessed at 1 day, 1 month, and 1 year. RESULTS: Corneas with a preoperative Kmax >57 D experienced greater reduction in axial curvature after ICRS implantation than corneas with a preoperative Kmax <57 D (7.0 D vs. 5.5 D, p=0.005) and gained more Snellen lines of CDVA (3 vs. 1, p<0.001) by 1 year postoperatively. The incidences of the most prevalent complications (explantation, extrusion, and infectious keratitis) did not differ significantly between the two groups (p=0.29, p=0.99, p=0.98). CONCLUSIONS: The visual and topographic effects of ICRS implantation are greater in eyes with more advanced KCN, with no increase in the incidence of the most common complications.

Navigating the Ophthalmology & Urology Match with a Significant Other.

OBJECTIVE: Medical students with a significant other in medical school face challenges when applying for residency as they attempt to match in proximity to their partner. The National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) offers a Couples Match to aid such applicants. This system is not available for ophthalmology and urology because these specialties utilize match systems outside the NRMP and have an early match timeline. The purpose of this study is to analyze usage of the Couples Match and assess ophthalmology and urology applicant viewpoints on the Couples Match system. DESIGN & SETTING: First, NRMP data on the Couples Match from 1987 to 2021 was reviewed. Second, an online survey was sent to 559 ophthalmology and 321 urology applicants to The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in the 2021 match cycle. PARTICIPANTS: 342 ophthalmology and urology applicants (39% response rate). RESULTS: There is increased usage of the Couples Match over time. In response to the survey, 89% of participants agreed that a Couples Match should be implemented in their specialty. 107 (31%) had a significant other in medicine. 78% of 68 respondents whose significant other also applied in 2021 reported that they would have used the Couples Match had it been available. 21% of those with a significant other considered not applying to ophthalmology or urology because there was no Couples Match. There are mixed responses regarding whether the early match timeline is beneficial to couples. Female applicants were more likely to report hesitancy about mentioning a significant other during the application process. CONCLUSIONS: The Couples Match is highly desired by applicants to ophthalmology and urology, and the lack of such a system is a deterrent to pursuing these fields. Future studies will help elucidate how the match system can be leveraged to aid individuals applying with a significant other.