RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To characterize injuries caused by exercise resistance bands. METHOD: Single-site retrospective case series of patients presenting to the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute emergency room with ocular injuries secondary to exercise resistance bands from March through September 2020. RESULTS: Eleven patients (9 males, 2 females, 14 eyes) were reviewed. Eight patients had a unilateral injury (3 right eyes, 5 left eyes) while 3 had bilateral injuries. Iritis was the most common presentation, seen in all 11 patients, followed by hyphema (9 patients, 82%), and vitreous hemorrhage (4 patients, 36%). Among affected eyes, the mean presenting visual acuity was approximately 20/100, improving to 20/40 on the last follow up (p = 0.06). However, 4 eyes (33%) had vision ≤20/60 at last follow up. CONCLUSIONS: Exercise resistance bands can cause a wide spectrum of ocular injuries, some leading to long-term vision loss. As such, we recommend that patients strongly consider using eye protection goggles or glasses while using resistance bands for exercise.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19/epidemiología , Lesiones Oculares/diagnóstico , Lesiones Oculares/etiología , Entrenamiento de Fuerza/efectos adversos , Entrenamiento de Fuerza/instrumentación , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Lesiones Oculares/terapia , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
PURPOSE: To assess content, readability, and accountability of online information for patients regarding epiretinal membranes (ERMs). METHODS: Cross-sectional study evaluating nine major medical websites on ERMs. Fifteen questions assessed patient-relevant content. Four indices estimated U.S. grade literacy level of the text. JAMA benchmarks (authorship, attribution, disclosure, currency) evaluated website accountability. RESULTS: Average content score was 36.78 (SD 13.91, 95% CI ±0.64) from a possible maximum of 60, with significant variability between websites (H = 22.68, p=0.004). Mean reading grade level was 12.29 (SD 2.30, 95% CI ±1.50). No website achieved all JAMA benchmarks; only one website fulfilled three of the four. Content score did not correlate with Google rank (order of listed websites, r = -0.23, p=0.55) or JAMA benchmarks (r = 0.19, p=0.62) but significantly correlated with mean reading grade (r = 0.67, p=0.05). CONCLUSION: Online information regarding ERMs varies significantly, may not adequately answer common patient questions, and is written at too complex a literacy level for the average patient.