RESUMEN
Purpose: This work evaluated the use and type of dietary supplements and home monitoring for nonneovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD), as well as the prevalence of genetic testing among patients with AMD. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted of 129 participants older than 50 years who completed self-administered questionnaires regarding usage and type of dietary supplements and home monitoring, as well as the participants' use of genetic testing for AMD. Results: Of 91 participants with AMD, 83 (91.2%) took vitamins, including 55 (60.4%) who used an Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) or AREDS2 formulation. Of 38 without AMD, 31 (81.6%) took vitamins (difference from participants with AMD = 9.6% [95% CI, 0%-23.2%]), including 2 on an AREDS formulation. Among 82 participants with AMD who were AREDS candidates (intermediate or advanced AMD in 1 or both eyes), 51 (62.2%; 95% CI, 51.7%-72.7%) took an AREDS or AREDS2 formulation, and 31 (37.8%) did not (5 were unsure). Additionally, 50 (61.0%; 95% CI, 50.4%-71.6%) AREDS candidates did some type of home monitoring. Only 1 (1.2%; 95% CI, 0%-3.6%) underwent genetic testing for AMD. Among 9 with AMD who were not AREDS candidates, 4 (44.4%) used an AREDS formulation, 4 (44.4%) did not, and 1 (11.1%) was unsure; only 1 (11.1%) of these 9 performed home monitoring. Conclusions: Despite similar results from past surveys and AREDS2 data supporting supplement use in 2013 and home monitoring in 2014, these findings suggest about one-third of AREDS candidates do not do so, providing further support for improving education regarding appropriate supplement and home monitoring usage. Genetic testing for AMD also appears infrequent.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and efficiency of retrobulbar versus sub-Tenon's capsule injection of local anesthetic in vitreoretinal surgery. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-masked clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTION: Sixty-four eyes from 61 patients undergoing vitreoretinal surgery were randomized to receive either retrobulbar or sub-Tenon's capsule injection of 5 ml of a 50:50 mixture of 4% lidocaine and 0.75% bupivacaine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measured was intraoperative eye pain, which was rated by patients in both groups using an 11-point (0-10) numerical visual analogue scale immediately after surgery and again the next morning. The surgeons indicated whether they perceived patient discomfort during 4 different stages of the operation: opening of the conjunctiva, vitrectomy (if performed), placement of scleral buckle (if performed), and closing of the conjunctiva. The preincision time, need for supplemental local anesthesia, and use of IV sedation for additional pain control were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Thirty-four eyes were randomized to retrobulbar injections, and 30 eyes were randomized to sub-Tenon's capsule injections. There was no significant difference in patient-reported intraoperative pain scores between the retrobulbar and sub-Tenon's capsule groups when assessed immediately after surgery (median, 2.0 vs. 2.0; P = 0.52) or the next day (median, 2.0 vs. 1.0; P = 0.26). The surgeons reported no difference between the two groups in terms of the percentages of patients with pain during opening of the conjunctiva (20.6% vs. 3.3%; P = 0.058), vitrectomy (31% vs. 32%; P = 1.00), placement of scleral buckle (33.3% vs. 40%; P = 1.00), and closing of the conjunctiva (26.5% vs. 26.7%; P = 1.00). There was a suggestion that preincision time was longer in the sub-Tenon's capsule group. Approximately equal percentages of patients in each group required supplemental local anesthesia (38% vs. 37%; P = 0.90) or IV medication (85% vs. 70%; P = 0.14) for pain control. CONCLUSIONS: Sub-Tenon's capsule injection of local anesthetic seems as effective as retrobulbar injection at controlling intraoperative pain in vitreoretinal surgery.