Surgical options and clinical outcomes for high myopia.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Higher degrees of myopia are currently being treated with refractive surgery. However, there is limited characterization and outcomes data for this cohort. This article aims to review the literature on highly myopic patients who had refractive surgery and present a retrospective analysis of 149 patients (270 eyes) with high to extreme myopia (≤-5.0D SE) who underwent refractive surgery [laser-assisted subepithelial keratomileusis (LASIK), photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), or implantable collamer lense (ICL)] at a single practice. RECENT FINDINGS: There is substantial literature on the efficacy of LASIK, PRK, and phakic intraocular lenses for refractive error correction, but a dearth of studies on patients with high to extreme myopia undergoing different types of refractive surgery. Our study reveals that this cohort of patients has excellent outcomes with minimal complications. SUMMARY: Our study reveals that the average preoperative myopia was highest in ICL patients (-10.03D), followed by PRK (-7.21D), and LASIK (-7.04D) patients. Not surprisingly, eyes with high myopia and thin corneas were offered and elected ICLs for their procedure. Highly myopic patients achieved outcomes consistent with data reported in the literature- average postoperative uncorrected visual acuity was 20/20 for LASIK and ICL eyes and 20/25 for PRK eyes.

Treatment of vulvar and vaginal dysplasia: plasma energy ablation versus carbon dioxide laser ablation.

OBJECTIVE: Plasma energy ablation vaporizes tissues similar to carbon dioxide laser ablation, but is not hindered by the unique hazards and regulation of laser technology. We aimed to evaluate the complication rate and effectiveness of plasma versus laser ablation in the treatment of vulvovaginal high-grade squamous intra-epithelial lesions (HSIL). METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of women treated with plasma or carbon dioxide laser ablation for histologically proven HSIL of the vulva or vagina from January 2014 to October 2019 at a single institution. Demographic factors, surgical characteristics, and complications were compared by ablation type using Fisher's exact tests. Recurrence-free survival was evaluated by ablation type using Kaplan-Meier curves, weighted log-rank tests, and Cox proportional hazards ratio estimates. RESULTS: Forty-two women were included; 50% underwent plasma and 50% underwent carbon dioxide laser ablation. Demographic factors were similar between the groups. 50% (n=21) were immunosuppressed, 45.2% (n=19) had prior vulvovaginal HSIL treatment, and 35.7% (n=15) were current smokers. Most women (n=25, 59.5%) were treated for vulvar HSIL, 38.1% (n=16) for vaginal HSIL. Complication rates did not differ by treatment: 9.5% (n=2) for laser ablation versus 4.8% (n=1) for plasma ablation (p=1.0). Over a median follow-up time of 29.3 months (IQR 11.0-45.0 months), recurrence rates were similar: 28.6% in the laser ablation group versus 33.3% in the plasma ablation group (weighted log rank p=0.43; 24-month HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.01). CONCLUSION: Plasma energy ablation of vulvovaginal HSIL has similar complication rates and recurrence risk to carbon dioxide laser ablation. This technique could be considered as an alternative treatment modality for vulvovaginal HSIL and warrants further investigation.

Basic social resource needs screening in the gynecologic oncology clinic: a quality improvement initiative.

BACKGROUND: Social determinants of health are known to contribute to disparities in health outcomes. Routine screening for basic social needs is not a part of standard care; however, the association of those needs with increased healthcare utilization and poor compliance with guideline-directed care is well established. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to assess the prevalence of basic social resource needs identified through a quality improvement initiative in a gynecologic oncology outpatient clinic. In addition, we aimed to identify clinical and demographic factors associated with having basic social resource needs. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a prospective cohort study of women presenting to a gynecologic oncology clinic at an urban academic institution who were screened for basic social resource needs as part of a quality improvement initiative from July 2017 to May 2018. The following 8 domains of resource needs were assessed: food insecurity, housing insecurity, utility needs, financial strain, transportation, childcare, household items, and difficulty reading hospital materials. Women with needs were referred to resources to address those needs. Demographic and clinical information were collected for each patient. The prevalence of needs and successful follow-up interventions were calculated. Patient factors independently associated with having at least 1 basic social resource need were identified using multivariable Poisson regression. RESULTS: A total of 752 women were screened in the study period, of whom 274 (36%) reported 1 or more basic social resource need, with a median of 1 (range, 1-7) need. Financial strain was the most commonly reported need (171 of 752, 23%), followed by transportation (119 of 752, 16%), difficulty reading hospital materials (54 of 752, 7%), housing insecurity (31 of 752, 4%), food insecurity (28 of 752, 4%), household items (22 of 752, 3%), childcare (15 of 752, 2%), and utility needs (13 of 752, 2%). On multivariable analysis, independent factors associated with having at least 1 basic social resource need were being single, divorced or widowed, nonwhite race, current smoker, nonprivate insurance, and a history of anxiety or depression. A total of 36 of 274 (13%) women who screened positive requested assistance and were referred to resources to address those needs. Of the 36 women, 25 (69%) successfully accessed a resource or felt equipped to address their needs, 9 (25%) could not be reached despite repeated attempts, and 2 (6%) declined assistance. CONCLUSION: Basic social resource needs are prevalent in women presenting to an urban academic gynecologic oncology clinic and can be identified and addressed through routine screening. To help mitigate ongoing disparities in this population, screening for and addressing basic social resource needs should be incorporated into routine comprehensive care in gynecologic oncology clinics.