RESUMO
BACKGROUND: To compare retention times of various ophthalmic viscosurgical devices (OVDs) and soft-shell combinations. METHODS: Experimental study. Eighteen rabbit eyes were divided into six groups of three eyes, based on OVDs tested. A: Endocoat, B: HealonPro, C: Viscoat, D: Provisc, E: Endocoat and HealonPro and F: Viscoat and Provisc. OVDs were stained with 10% fluorescein dye before being injected into the anterior chamber. Phacoemulsification, using fixed parameters, was performed. If OVD persisted after 60 s, a standardised irrigation and aspiration technique replaced phacoemulsification. The time until central and complete clearance of the OVD were video-recorded and measured. RESULTS: Mean central retention times (CRT) were found to be: HealonPro-5.33 ± 2.56 s, Provisc-3.33 ± 1.11 s, Endocoat-75.0 ± 3.26 s, Viscoat-62.33 ± 5.19 s, combining HealonPro with Endocoat-22.67 ± 4.75 s and Provisc with Viscoat-11.0 ± 0.82 s. The mean total retention time (TRT) was: Endocoat-80.0 ± 8.17 s, Viscoat-81.67 ± 2.09 s, HealonPro with Endocoat-81.33 ± 3.35 s, and Provisc with Viscoat-71.0 ± 2.94 s. For HealonPro and Provisc, CRT and TRT remained identical across all trials. CONCLUSIONS: Retention times varied, with cohesive OVDs exhibiting shorter durations than dispersive OVDs. Among dispersive OVDs, TRTs were comparable; however, Endocoat displayed an extended CRT. In soft shell trials, the combination of HealonPro and Endocoat exhibited prolonged CRT and TRT, suggesting enhanced corneal protection.
RESUMO
AIM: To evaluate residents' perceptions and attitudes toward the various aspects of a comprehensive ophthalmic examination, and to determine if these factors correlate with their choices for fellowship and future career plans. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study. A questionnaire on the perception of the ophthalmic exam was sent via SurveyMonkey to ophthalmology residents throughout Israel. Eighty of them (one-half of all ophthalmology residents in 2019) completed it. The first part related to how they perceived each component of the ophthalmic evaluation. The second part related to their future fellowship plans. The Chi-squared test was used to compare categorical variables and Student's t-test and One-way ANOVA were used to compare continuous variables. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was applied as needed to detect interactions between variables and to exclude confounder effects. RESULTS: Slit-lamp examination of the anterior and posterior segments ranked as the most likeable aspects, whereas gonioscopy, ocular motility examination and visual acuity assessment were least likeable. Anterior segment and retina subspecialties were the ones most sought after. Forty-nine respondents (61.3%) noted a direct correlation between their preferred parts of comprehensive ophthalmic evaluations and their choice of subspecialty. Perceptions of selected components of those evaluations were significantly associated with responders' intentions to pursue anterior segment, retina, or oculoplastic fellowships (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Perspectives of residents toward the ophthalmic examination, and most specifically its individual components, play an important role in their choice of subspecialty training.