ABSTRACT
Purpose: Foreign body sensation and irritation are common after cataract surgery, as is the exacerbation of dry eye disease if present. This study compared postoperative dry eye treatments and patient satisfaction. Methods: Age-related cataract patients undergoing phacoemulsification were recruited and were divided randomly into 4 postoperative treatment groups: Group A: Antibiotic + Steroids; Group B: Antibiotic + Steroids + Mydriatic; Group C: Antibiotic + Steroids + Mydriatic + Non-steroidal Ant- inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs); Group D: Antibiotic + Steroids + Mydriatic + NSAID + Tear substitute. Patients were assessed at 1, 3, and 5 weeks post-operatively for uncorrected distance and near vision, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) for distance and near, Schirmer’s-1 test, and Tear Film Break-Up Time test. At each visit, patients were assessed for dry eye-related subjective parameters using Ocular Surface Disease Index questionnaire. Results: Study participants numbered 163. (87 male and 76 female patients). No statistically significant difference was present in visual acuity for near and distance. The mean values of Schirmer’s test and TFBUT were better in group D patients at each postoperative visit, with significant differences noted in comparison with other groups. The patient response to pain and dry eye symptoms was superior in groups C and D, with group D producing the best results. Compared to group A, patients in groups C and D were more satisfied with their vision and surgery. Conclusion: The addition of tear substitutes to steroids and NSAIDs has been associated with decreased dry eye-related symptoms and a better subjective feeling of vision, although no significant difference was noted in vision measured objectively
ABSTRACT
Purpose: Functional recovery after cataract surgery depends on the anatomical recovery of the eye. This study compared the improvement in visual function parameters after uniocular manual small-incision cataract surgery (MSICS) and phacoemulsification cataract surgery. Methods: This study included 310 patients divided randomly into two groups: 155 who received MSICS (MSICS group) and 155 who underwent phacoemulsification (phaco group) for cataract treatment. Outcome measures assessed included vertical and horizontal keratometry reading. The mean corneal astigmatism tear function measured using Schirmer 1 test results were recorded preoperatively, and on postoperative day 1, day 7, and day 30. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) was done to record the average central macular thickness (?m) on day 7 and day 30. Results: The mean corneal astigmatism and anterior chamber inflammation were more in the MSICS group than in the phaco group immediately postoperatively. However, no statistically significant difference was found between the groups with respect to corneal sensation, mean corneal astigmatism, tear film function, and visual outcomes on postoperative day 30. Uncorrected visual acuity was better in the phacoemulsification group than in the manual SICS group on postoperative day 1, day 7, and day 30 (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Both phacoemulsification cataract surgery and manual small-incision sutureless cataract surgery (MSICS) are safe and effective for visual rehabilitation. Phacoemulsification is the preferred technique where resources are available with the advantages of less mean corneal astigmatism, less anterior chamber inflammation, and better uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) in the immediate postoperative period
ABSTRACT
Purpose: The objective of this survey?based study was to examine the effects of personal protective measures taken at the level of instrument and surgeon during the pandemic on the optics in ophthalmology. Methods: The study involved an online questionnaire of 24 questions which was distributed to ophthalmologists practicing in several hospitals, including residents and fellows undergoing training in ophthalmology in India. The responses were collected through an online data collection tool (Google forms). The participants could choose from multiple options provided to them in each question. Results: A total of 285 participants out of 296 had used modified methods for examining and performing surgical procedures during the pandemic, while 78.7% (265) of the participants acknowledged having encountered difficulty in interpreting the ocular findings of patients while examining in personal protective equipment. Moreover, 58.7% (198) of our study respondents also reported that there was significant worsening of the quality of ophthalmological examination with pandemic?appropriate measures and 84.8% (286) of our study participants also felt that these measures have significantly added to the time of examination, hence increasing the risk of exposure to both patient and doctor. Conclusion: The workplace study has highlighted the crucial aspects of optics in ophthalmology during the pandemic. The protective measures taken during the pandemic have significantly worsened the quality of ophthalmological examination and increased the time taken to perform outpatient department?based and surgical procedures in ophthalmology