Malpractice Cases Arising From Telephone Based Telemedicine Triage in Ophthalmology.

PURPOSE: To determine the allegation, precipitating medical issue, and outcome of telephone triage focused malpractice litigation among ophthalmologists. METHODS: The WestLaw Edge database was reviewed using terms pertaining to ophthalmology and telemedicine. The search ranged from 4/7/30 to 1/25/22. RESULTS: Of the 510 lawsuits, 3.5% (18/510) met inclusion criteria. 94.5% (17/18) alleged delays in evaluation and/or treatment. 61.1% (11/18) alleged incorrect diagnoses, 38.9% (7/18) claimed improper discussion of risks or informed consent, and 5.6% (1/18) alleged delayed referrals. The precipitating medical issues included retinal detachment in 33.3% (6/18) of cases, post-procedure and post-trauma endophthalmitis in 33.3% (6/18) of cases, ocular trauma without endophthalmitis in 22.2% (4/18) of cases, and bilateral acute retinal necrosis and allergic reactions each accounting for 5.6% (1/18) of cases. CONCLUSION: Telephone triage creates potential malpractice litigation. Delay in in-person clinical evaluation and alleged failure to inform patients of possible irreversible vision loss may lead to potential malpractice litigation. We suggest offering the option of same day in person evaluation and informing the patient how delay may lead to irreversible vision loss.

Pain Control after Intravitreal Injection Using Topical Nepafenac 0.3% or Pressure Patching: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Pain after an intravitreal injection (IVI) can last up to 7 days and negatively impacts the patient's experience, potentially reducing treatment compliance. We prospectively evaluated topical nepafenac 0.3% suspension and patching for the reduction of pain after IVI. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty patients receiving an IVI of bevacizumab, aflibercept, or triamcinolone acetonide in 1 eye. METHODS: Participants were randomized equally to receive either a single drop of nepafenac 0.3%, a pressure patch for 2 hours, or a single drop of preservative-free artificial tears (control group). A single-blinded placebo-controlled design was used to mask the topical treatment used. Pain was assessed using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale that ranged from 0 to 10 (horizontal pain scale). Because pain scores were not normally distributed, statistical analysis was performed using a nonparametric randomization-based analysis of covariance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Pain scores. RESULTS: Fifty-six and 53 patients of the 60 patients enrolled completed the 6- and 24-hour follow-ups, respectively. Numeric Pain Rating Scale scores at 6 and 24 hours after IVI were lower in the nepafenac group (0.8±0.3 and 0.1±0.1, respectively; n = 18) and the patching group (1.3±0.4 and 0.4±0.2, respectively; n = 19) compared with the control group (2.5±0.6 and 0.9±0.4, respectively; n = 19). After controlling for age, gender, number of prior injections, and physician administering the injection, patients in the nepafenac group reported significantly lower pain scores than those in the control group at 6 hours (1.3±0.6 less; P = 0.047) and 24 hours (0.7±0.3 less; P = 0.047). Although the patching group reported lower pain scores than the control group, this was not statistically significant (6 hours, P = 0.24; 24 hours, P = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS: Nepafenac 0.3% was effective as a single drop in reducing pain at 6 and 24 hours after IVI compared with placebo. Limited patching was associated with lower pain scores than placebo, but the difference was not statistically significant. Additional studies are needed to determine the most effective method to maximize the patient's experience after an IVI without sacrificing outcomes.

Appointment Compliance in Patients With Diabetic Macular Edema and Exudative Macular Degeneration.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to compare cancellation and no-show rates in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) and exudative macular degeneration (wet AMD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: An anonymous survey was sent to 1,726 retina specialists inquiring as to the number of appointments their patients with DME and wet AMD attended, cancelled, or did not show up for in 2014 and 2015. RESULTS: Data were obtained on 109,599 appointments. Patients with DME in the U.S. had a 1.591-times increased odds of cancelling or no-showing to their appointments than patients with wet AMD (P < .0001). Patients with DME in Europe had a 1.918-times increased odds of cancelling or no showing to their appointments than patients with wet AMD (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Patients with DME in the U.S. and Europe cancelled and no-showed to their appointments significantly more often than patients with wet AMD. These findings can be taken into consideration when establishing treatment plans for patients with DME. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2018;49:186-190.].

Acute Solar Retinopathy Imaged With Adaptive Optics, Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography, and En Face Optical Coherence Tomography.

IMPORTANCE: Solar retinopathy is a rare form of retinal injury that occurs after direct sungazing. OBJECTIVE: To enhance understanding of the structural changes that occur in solar retinopathy by obtaining high-resolution in vivo en face images. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANT: Case report of a young adult woman who presented to the New York Eye and Ear Infirmary with symptoms of acute solar retinopathy after viewing the solar eclipse on August 21, 2017. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Results of comprehensive ophthalmic examination and images obtained by fundus photography, microperimetry, spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (OCT), adaptive optics scanning light ophthalmoscopy, OCT angiography, and en face OCT. RESULTS: The patient was examined after viewing the solar eclipse. Visual acuity was 20/20 OD and 20/25 OS. The patient was left-eye dominant. Spectral-domain OCT images were consistent with mild and severe acute solar retinopathy in the right and left eye, respectively. Microperimetry was normal in the right eye but showed paracentral decreased retinal sensitivity in the left eye with a central absolute scotoma. Adaptive optics images of the right eye showed a small region of nonwaveguiding photoreceptors, while images of the left eye showed a large area of abnormal and nonwaveguiding photoreceptors. Optical coherence tomography angiography images were normal in both eyes. En face OCT images of the right eye showed a small circular hyperreflective area, with central hyporeflectivity in the outer retina of the right eye. The left eye showed a hyperreflective lesion that intensified in area from inner to middle retina and became mostly hyporeflective in the outer retina. The shape of the lesion on adaptive optics and en face OCT images of the left eye corresponded to the shape of the scotoma drawn by the patient on Amsler grid. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Acute solar retinopathy can present with foveal cone photoreceptor mosaic disturbances on adaptive optics scanning light ophthalmoscopy imaging. Corresponding reflectivity changes can be seen on en face OCT, especially in the middle and outer retina. Young adults may be especially vulnerable and need to be better informed of the risks of viewing the sun with inadequate protective eyewear.

Long-term results of combination therapy using anti-VEGF agents and dexamethasone intravitreal implant for retinal vein occlusion: an investigational case series.

BACKGROUND: One limitation of anti-VEGF therapy is the need for monthly retreatment to maintain efficacy. The purpose of this study was to determine the duration of effect in eyes with macular edema (ME) secondary to branch or central retinal vein occlusion (BRVO or CRVO) treated with anti-VEGF therapy plus sustained-release dexamethasone (DEX implant; Ozurdex). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This open-label, interventional case series included 62 eyes with ME due to RVO, central foveal thickness (CFT) >300 µm, and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 20/40 or worse. Each treatment cycle included an anti-VEGF injection followed 2 weeks later with DEX implant. Patients were eligible for retreatment if CFT increased to >290 µm or increased by >50 µm from the lowest measurement, or if BCVA decreased by six or more Snellen letters. Efficacy and safety were evaluated 2 and 4-6 weeks after the beginning of each treatment cycle and every 4 weeks thereafter until retreatment criteria were met. The primary outcome measure was time to retreatment. Secondary outcome measures included BCVA, CFT, and safety parameters. RESULTS: The mean reinjection interval for all patients was 135.5±36.4 days. There was no statistically significant difference in mean intertreatment interval for up to six cycles of treatment or between eyes with BRVO or CRVO (P≥0.058). Mean peak change in BCVA was 13.8 letters, and 47.6% of eyes gained three or more lines of BCVA. The mean peak decrease in CFT across all treatment cycles was 200.9 µm for eyes with BRVO and 219.2 µm for eyes with CRVO. The percentage of patients with CFT ≤300 µm at any time during a given treatment cycle ranged from 78% to 94% among eyes with BRVO and from 85% to 100% among eyes with CRVO. Intraocular pressure increased in 19 of 62 eyes, and 26 of 44 phakic eyes underwent cataract surgery. CONCLUSION: In eyes with ME due to RVO, treatment with an anti-VEGF agent plus DEX implant provided a predictable duration of effect, as well as significant improvements in BCVA and CFT.

Diabetic macular edema: it is more than just VEGF.

Diabetic macular edema is a serious visual complication of diabetic retinopathy. This article reviews the history of previous and current therapies, including laser therapy, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents, and corticosteroids, that have been used to treat this condition. In addition, it proposes new ways to use them in combination in order to decrease treatment burden and potentially address other causes besides vascular endothelial growth factor for diabetic macular edema.