Pupil expansion device use and operative outcomes with topical dilation vs intracameral epinephrine in resident-performed cataract surgery.

PURPOSE: To compare the use of topical dilation drops vs topical drops with the addition of intracameral epinephrine in resident-performed cataract surgery and the effects on pupil expansion device (PED) use, surgical costs, and surgical times. SETTING: Iowa City Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Iowa City, Iowa, USA. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. METHODS: Resident-performed primary cataract surgical cases using topical dilation drops only or drops with the addition of intracameral epinephrine were analyzed for PED use, surgical time, and costs in all patients and in patients with a history of tamsulosin use. RESULTS: In the topical group, PEDs were used in 31.1% of cases compared with 13.5% of cases in the intracameral group (P < .0001). History of tamsulosin use was noted in about one third of cases in both groups. For patients with a history of tamsulosin use, PED use decreased from 52.7% in the topical cases to 17.9% in the intracameral group (P < .0001). Surgical times were on average 7.1 minutes slower with PED use than without PED use. There was a medication savings of $50.44 USD per case in the intracameral group compared with the topical group. Factoring in the $100 to $130 USD per PED used, total surgical costs were $19 267 USD less in the intracameral group over 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Intracameral epinephrine with lidocaine decreases the need for PED use during cataract surgery, lowers intraoperative costs, and improves efficiency compared with topical dilation drops alone.

Cost-effectiveness of cycloplegic agents: results of a randomized controlled trial in nigerian children.

PURPOSE: To compare the cost and effectiveness of three cycloplegic agents among Nigerian children. METHODS: Two hundred thirty-three children aged 4 to 15 years attending outpatient eye clinics in Nigeria were randomized to (1) 1% cyclopentolate, (2) 1% cyclopentolate and 0.5% tropicamide, or (3) 1% atropine drops in each eye (instilled at home over 3 days). Ten children were lost to follow-up, nine from the atropine group. An optometrist measured the residual accommodation (primary outcome), dilated pupil size, pupil response to light, and self-reported side effects (secondary outcomes). Caregivers were interviewed about costs incurred due to cycloplegia (primary outcome). The incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated as the difference in cost divided by the difference in effectiveness comparing two agents. The 95% confidence intervals (CI) for ICERs were estimated through bootstrapping. RESULTS: The atropine group had significantly lower mean residual accommodation (0.04 +/- 0.01 D [SE]), than the combined regimen (0.36 +/- 0.05 D) and cyclopentolate (0.63 +/- 0.06 D) groups (P < 0.001). Atropine and the combined regimen produced better results for negative response to light and dilated pupil size than cyclopentolate. Atropine was more expensive, but also more effective, than the other agents. The ICER comparing atropine to the combined regimen was 1.81 (95% CI = -6.31-15.35) and compared to cyclopentolate was 0.59 (95% CI = -3.47-5.47). The combined regimen was both more effective and less expensive than cyclopentolate alone. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of cyclopentolate and tropicamide should become the recommended agent for routine cycloplegic refraction in African children. The combined regimen was more effective than cyclopentolate, but not more expensive, and was preferable to atropine, since it incurred fewer losses to follow-up.