The prone position in COVID-19 impacts the thickness of peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layers and macular ganglion cell layers.

The prone position reduces mortality in severe cases of COVID-19 with acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, visual loss and changes to the peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (p-RNFL) and the macular ganglion cell layer and inner plexiform layer (m-GCIPL) have occurred in patients undergoing surgery in the prone position. Moreover, COVID-19-related eye problems have been reported. This study compared the p-RNFL and m-GCIPL thicknesses of COVID-19 patients who were placed in the prone position with patients who were not. This prospective longitudinal and case-control study investigated 15 COVID-19 patients placed in the prone position (the "Prone Group"), 23 COVID-19 patients not in the prone position (the "Non-Prone Group"), and 23 healthy, non-COVID individuals without ocular disease or systemic conditions (the "Control Group"). The p-RNFL and m-GCIPL thicknesses of the COVID-19 patients were measured at 1, 3, and 6 months and compared within and between groups. The result showed that the Prone and Non-Prone Groups had no significant differences in their p-RNFL thicknesses at the 3 follow-ups. However, the m-GCIPL analysis revealed significant differences in the inferior sector of the Non-Prone Group between months 1 and 3 (mean difference, 0.74 µm; P = 0.009). The p-RNFL analysis showed a significantly greater thickness at 6 months for the superior sector of the Non-Prone Group (131.61 ± 12.08 µm) than for the Prone Group (118.87 ± 18.21 µm; P = 0.039). The m-GCIPL analysis revealed that the inferior sector was significantly thinner in the Non-Prone Group than in the Control Group (at 1 month 80.57 ± 4.60 versus 83.87 ± 5.43 µm; P = 0.031 and at 6 months 80.48 ± 3.96 versus 83.87 ± 5.43 µm; P = 0.044). In conclusion, the prone position in COVID-19 patients can lead to early loss of p-RNFL thickness due to rising intraocular pressure, which is independent of the timing of prone positioning. Consequently, there is no increase in COVID-19 patients' morbidity burden.

Comparison of clinical outcomes of conjunctivo-mullerectomy for varying degrees of ptosis.

To compare the success of conjunctivo-mullerectomy in patients with varying degrees of ptosis and identify factors affecting outcomes and complications. The prospective cohort was studied in patients with ptosis undergoing conjunctivo-mullerectomy with or without tarsectomy were enrolled. Ptosis was classified as mild, moderate, and severe per margin-to-reflex distance 1 (MRD1). Postoperative MRD1, complications, and 3-month success rates were evaluated. The study enrolled 258 ptotic eyes of 159 patients. Most eyes (233; 90.3%) achieved surgical success, 14 (5.4%) were overcorrected, and 11 (4.3%) were undercorrected. The success rates for mild, moderate, and severe ptosis were 96.6%, 91.7%, and 83.5%, respectively. The mild and moderate ptosis groups had a nonsignificant difference in success (- 4.9%; 95% CI - 12.0% to 4.5%; P = 0.36). However, the mild and severe ptosis groups' rates significantly differed (- 13.1%; 95% CI - 23.6% to - 1.9%; P = 0.03). For all 3 ptosis groups, the success rates of individuals undergoing surgery without tarsectomy did not significantly differ. Patients undergoing conjunctivo-mullerectomy with tarsectomy had an increased risk of unsuccessful surgery (OR 3.103; 95% CI 1.205-7.986; P = 0.019). In conclusions, Conjunctivo-mullerectomy is safe and effective for all ptosis severities. The success rate was significantly lower for severe ptosis than mild or moderate ptosis. Levator muscle function was not associated with unsuccessful outcomes, but tarsectomy was.