Single or double? A comparison of evisceration techniques.

PURPOSE: We compared the rates of implant exposure and extrusion after evisceration with single and double scleral closure techniques. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included all patients who underwent evisceration with an implant insertion over the past 18 years at Tung Wah Eastern Hospital and Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital. Clinical documents and operation records were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 81 ethnic Chinese patients (44 male) who underwent evisceration with primary implant insertion were reviewed. 39 (48%) patients underwent the double scleral closure technique with an implant placed posterior to the posterior sclera, and 42 (52%) patients underwent the single scleral closure technique with an implant inserted in the intra-scleral cavity. The follow-up interval was 70 months. The surgical indications were endophthalmitis (35%), painful blind eye (23%), traumatic disfigured globe (22%) and phthisis bulbi (20%). Silicone was the most used implant material (69%). The patients who underwent double scleral closure had a larger size of the implant (19.7 vs 17.9 mm, p < 0.05). Both implant exposure (26% vs 3%, p < 0.05) and implant extrusion (26% vs 0%, p < 0.05) were more common in patients who underwent single scleral. CONCLUSIONS: Double scleral closure technique allows a larger implant, and it is associated with a lower rate of implant exposure and extrusion. The double scleral closure technique is a superior technique of choice in these patients with primary implant placement.

The use of short message service (SMS) to reduce outpatient attendance in ophthalmic clinics during the coronavirus pandemic.

PURPOSE: In order to minimize the risk of transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), many clinic appointments were postponed to lower patient attendance. Actively calling patients to postpone appointments is a labour-intensive process. We were the first ophthalmic clinics in Hong Kong to use short message service (SMS) to dispatch messages simultaneously to a large number of patients to offer postponement of appointments. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether SMS is an effective method to reduce outpatient attendance during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This is an observational study reviewing data on SMS messages sent to all patients attending ophthalmology clinics of a tertiary eye centre in Hong Kong. All SMS were sent at least 5 days before the scheduled appointments. The text message included an enquiry hotline for postponement of appointments and offered drug refill. The study included data from February to April 2020. Two hundred patients were invited to take part in a questionnaire on satisfaction level and reason(s) for appointment rescheduling. RESULTS: During the study period, a total of 17,028 SMS were sent. The overall response rate was 23.6%. 14.3% postponed their appointments. This led to an overall 13.9% reduction of clinic attendance. The overall satisfaction was high (96%). The main reason for postponing appointment was worries about infection risk (93.1%). CONCLUSION: SMS was an efficient and cost-effective flow-control method which was well accepted by patients and can reduce outpatient attendance. The time saved can potentially allow healthcare workers to conduct other infection control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Surgical outcomes of orbital evisceration with primary orbital implant placement in patients with endophthalmitis.

OBJECTIVES: This study reports the surgical outcomes of evisceration with primary orbital implant placement in patients with endophthalmitis and analyses the association with implant exposure and extrusion. METHODS: A retrospective, multicentre, Chinese cohort study. Review of medical records and orbital images of patients who underwent evisceration with primary orbital implant placement between January 2005 and January 2021. RESULTS: Out of 79 patients who underwent orbital evisceration with primary orbital implant placement, 26 (26 eyes) of them (male = 13) suffered from endophthalmitis. The duration from endophthalmitis diagnosis (19 = exogenous, 7 = endogenous) to evisceration was 9 standard deviation ± 5 (range: 1-15) days. The follow-up was 70 ± 46 (24-180) months after operation. The orbital implant size was 17 ± 3 (14-20) mm, and silicone was the most used material (69%, 18/26 of patients). The most frequent post-operative complication was orbital implant exposure (42%, 11/26), followed by orbital implant extrusion (12% 3/26) and ptosis (8%, 2/26). Implant exposure or extrusion was more commonly associated with endophthalmitis in comparison to non-endophthalmitis patients that required evisceration and primary orbital implant placement (54% versus 17%, P < 0.05). Univariate analysis showed single scleral closure technique (100% versus 58%, P < 0.05) and endogenous endophthalmitis (50% versus 0%, P < 0.05) were associated with implant exposure or extrusion, and only endogenous endophthalmitis was significant with multivariate analysis (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Primary implant placement during evisceration should be avoided in eyes with endophthalmitis especially in those with an endogenous source, and double scleral closure technique may be a better alternative for primary orbital implant placement in infected eyes.