Causes of Vision Loss Associated with Dengue Fever in Bihar, India - A Case Series.

The incidence and geographic distribution of dengue has increased dramatically in recent years across various parts of the world. Previously, ocular findings in dengue fever were considered rare. We report a spectrum of ocular manifestations presenting with vision loss in the last dengue epidemic in an eastern state of India. This is a retrospective interventional case series of patients with vision loss who were diagnosed with dengue eye disease in the 2022 epidemic. Systemic and ophthalmic examinations were completed on all patients and were analyzed. Fifteen patients had presented with vision loss. The mean age was 41.7 ± 10.8 years, and patients were mostly males. Three patients presented with panophthalmitis and orbital cellulitis. Eight patients were diagnosed with optic neuropathy. Four patients had macular involvement: macular chorioretinitis, macular subhyaloid hemorrhage, and macular hemorrhages in two patients. All patients with optic neuropathy gave a history of mild fever and had remained undiagnosed. The rest had been diagnosed with the more severe dengue hemorrhagic fever. Vision recovered partially or fully in patients with optic neuropathy and macular disease. No eye could be salvaged in any panophthalmitis patients. Thrombocytopenia (platelet count <100 × 109 per liter of blood) was significantly associated with ocular hemorrhage and panophthalmitis, but thrombocytopenia was not significantly seen in optic neuropathy. We conclude that optic neuropathy may be an underreported cause of vision loss in dengue fever. An eye examination is advocated in all patients with dengue eye disease.

Arrugas Bone Trephine Assisted Flapless Dacryocystorhinostomy with Circumosteal - Mitomycin C Versus External Dacryocystorhinostomy: A Hospital Based Comparative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction is a common ophthalmic condition and has conventionally been managed by external dacryocystorhinostomy. However this procedure is time consuming and involves making mucosal flaps. The aim of this study was to compare the surgical outcome in Arrugas bone trephine-assisted flapless dacryocystorhinostomy with Circumosteal - Mitomycin C versus conventional external dacryocystorhinostomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective non-randomized study of surgical outcome in patients of primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction who underwent an Arrugas bone trephine assisted flapless dacryocystorhinostomy with Circumosteal - Mitomycin C (group A) versus those who underwent conventional external dacryocystorhinostomy (group B) in a teaching hospital in North India. Patients with previously failed dacryocystorhinostomy, lacrimal fistula, canalicular and common canalicular obstruction were excluded. Success was defined as patent syringing at the end of one year. Surgical time was calculated from skin incision to skin suturing. RESULTS: There was complete resolution of epiphora with patent syringing in 43 out of 52 patients in group A, while in group B, 47 out of 55 patients had complete resolution of epiphora with patent syringing at the end of one year (p= 0.77). Mean surgical time was significantly lower in Group A than in Group B (p=<.05). Scarring and closure of the ostium was the most common cause of failure in both groups (Group A, n=5, 9.6%; Group B, n= 3, 5.45%). CONCLUSION: Arrugas bone trephine-assisted flapless dacryocystorhinostomy with Circumosteal - Mitomycin C is a viable alternative to conventional external dacryocystorhinostomy with comparable success rate and shorter surgical time and a faster learning curve.

External dacryocystorhinostomy conventional surgery versus Pawar implant: A comparative study.

Purpose: External dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) surgeries are cost-effective with excellent success rates. The present study was designed to compare the safety and efficacy of conventional external DCR versus external DCR using Pawar silicone implant in chronic dacryocystitis. Methods: This is a prospective, comparative, interventional case series over a period of 18 months with patients managed by external DCR surgery with and without Pawar implant. Institutional review board approval was obtained before the study. The success of the surgery was objectively measured by sac patency on syringing at the last follow up. Results: A total of 65 patients with chronic dacryocystitis were included in the study. The mean age of patients in the series was 41.43 years (median, 41 years; range, 12 years-60 years). All patients presented with epiphora (100%) and underwent external DCR and were chosen for conventional surgery (n = 33, 51%, group 1) or Pawar silicone implant surgery (n = 32, 49%, group 2) on a random basis. The mean duration of the surgery from the time of skin incision to skin closure for group 1 was 27.7 minutes (median, 26 minutes; range, 21-30 minutes) while in group 2, it was 75.5 minutes (median, 75 minutes; range, 60-88 minutes), which was statistically significant (P < 0.01). The success rate of the procedure done in group 1 was 90% which increased to 97% after the management of failed cases as compared to the success rate in group 2 of 91% and 94%, before and after the management of failed cases, respectively. Conclusion: External DCR using Pawar implant is a safe surgery which is faster than conventional external DCR with almost equal success rates between both the procedures.