Health Care Use for Eye Pain.

Importance: National estimates regarding the frequency of presentations and patterns of care for eye pain are unknown. This information could guide research and clinical efforts to optimize outcomes. Objective: To estimate eye pain visits in the US in the outpatient and emergency department (ED) settings. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cross-sectional study of National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data (2008-2019) analyzed a population-based sample of visits to outpatient clinics and EDs. The sample consisted of patients presenting with eye pain. Data were analyzed from September 2023 to April 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Weighted sample data estimated outpatient and ED eye pain presentations including patient and clinician characteristics, diagnoses (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision [ICD-10]), and disposition. Results: From 2008 through 2019, 4.6 million (95% CI, 3.9 million to 5.3 million) outpatient and 1.0 million (95% CI, 0.8 million to 1.1 million) ED eye pain visits occurred annually. Patients were predominantly women (63.2% [95% CI, 59.4%-67.0%]) and older than 60 years (46.6% [95% CI, 42.4%-51.0%]) in the outpatient setting. Patients presenting to the ED were more often men (51.8% [95% CI, 48.7%-55.0%]) and aged younger than 45 years (aged <15 years: 16.4% [95% CI, 13.9%-18.8%]; 15-24 years: 19.2% [95% CI, 16.6%-21.7%]; and 25-44 years: 35.6% [95% CI, 32.7%-38.5%]). In nearly half of outpatient eye pain visits, the major problem was classified as nonacute (2.0 million [95% CI, 1.6 million to 2.3 million]). Eye pain was the primary reason for the visit (RFV) in 42.0% (95% CI, 37.8%-46.2%) of outpatient visits and 66.9% (95% CI, 62.9%-70.9%) of ED eye pain visits. It was the only RFV in 18.3% (95% CI, 15.0%-21.7%) of outpatient and 32.7% (95% CI, 29.0%-36.4%) of ED eye pain encounters. Ophthalmologists evaluated the largest number of outpatient visits (45.3% [95% CI, 38.8%-51.7%). The primary diagnosis was non-vision threatening for most outpatient (78.5% [95% CI, 56.8%-100%]) and ED (69.9% [95% CI, 62.1%-77.7%]) visits when eye pain was the primary RFV. Additional follow-up was scheduled in 89.4% (95% CI, 86.2%-92.6%) of visits. Conclusions and Relevance: More than 5 million eye pain visits occur annually; the largest percentage are outpatient with ophthalmologists. Most diagnoses were non-vision threatening in both the outpatient and ED setting and resulted in additional care. Expanding therapeutic approaches to treat the causes of eye pain may reduce the burden on the health care system and optimize outcomes.

Nontraditional approaches to sedation for anterior segment surgery: a narrative review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Surgical and anesthetic technological advancement have made both cataract and noncataract anterior segment surgery significantly less invasive and time-intensive, facilitating the transition of some of these procedures from the operating room under monitored anesthesia care (MAC) to the office-based setting without MAC. This transition has been aided by the popularization of nonintravenous approaches to achieving patient sedation for these procedures. In this review, we discuss the literature surrounding traditional and nontraditional methods of achieving patient sedation for anterior segment surgery. RECENT FINDINGS: Our survey of the literature suggests that nonintravenous (IV) approaches to sedation for these procedures may be just as safe, effective, and satisfactory to patients as traditional IV approaches. SUMMARY: As anterior segment surgery becomes less invasive and less time-intensive, providers considering transitioning their cataract and anterior segment surgery out of the operating room and into the office-based setting without MAC anesthesia should consider the non-IV sedation options outlined in this review to achieve adequate patient sedation and comfort.

Impact of Diplopia and Ptosis From Lingering Third Nerve Palsy After Treatment of Cerebral Aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Third nerve palsies (TNPs) may not resolve after intervention for intracranial aneurysms that have compressed the nerve. The disability related to this lingering condition has not been assessed with the support of patient self-report. METHODS: A single-institutional retrospective study of patients with TNP who had undergone interventions for intracranial aneurysms. We used residual primary-position diplopia, a narrow zone of single binocular vision, and vision-obscuring ptosis to divide TNP recovery into complete, incomplete nondisabling, and incomplete disabling outcomes based on medical record documentation and patient self-report derived from telephonic interviews. RESULTS: In a cohort of 33 patients, 13 (39%) had complete TNP recovery. There were 11 patients (33%) with lingering visual disability from diplopia or ptosis present before ophthalmic interventions. Of the 6 patients who underwent ophthalmic interventions, visual disability was relieved in only 2 patients, leaving 9 patients (27%) with lingering impairment in instrumental activities of daily living. Telephonic interviews of 23 patients (70% of the cohort) confirmed that the outcome criteria we applied were accurate in assessing visual disability in 17 patients (74%). Univariate analysis using the Fisher exact test showed that aneurysmal clipping as a treatment modality was the only clinical feature associated with a favorable TNP outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In applying a novel method of assessing disability, this study showed that more than one-quarter of patients undergoing procedures for brain aneurysms had lingering disability from third nerve palsy-associated diplopia or ptosis, despite later ophthalmic interventions. Patient self-report gleaned from telephonic interviews was valuable in largely validating the assessment method derived from medical records and in revealing differences between physician and patient estimation of disability.