Pediatric preseptal and orbital cellulitis - a 6 year experience from a London tertiary centre.

PURPOSE: This study reports the experience of pediatric preseptal and orbital cellulitis at a London tertiary centre during a 6-year period and highlights the role of orbital surgeons in the management of subperiosteal abscess (SPA). METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of all pediatric patients hospitalised for preseptal and orbital cellulitis. RESULTS: A total of 201 children including 152 cases of preseptal cellulitis and 49 cases of orbital cellulitis were admitted at a London tertiary centre over the study period. Patients with orbital cellulitis and especially those managed surgically had higher rates of fever, higher presenting white cell count and C-reactive protein level compared to cases of preseptal cellulitis. 77.6% of patients with orbital cellulitis had SPA. 81.6% of SPA had a medial component, while 28.9% had superior component. 61.2% of orbital cellulitis cases were managed surgically. Surgical intervention was carried out by otorhinolaryngologists (ENT) in 76.7% of cases, jointly between ENT and orbital surgeons in 16.7% of cases and by orbital surgeons alone in 6.7% of cases. Of the 11 SPA involving the orbital roof, all were surgically managed and orbital surgeons were involved in 54.5% of cases. When SPA involved the medial wall, orbital surgeons were only involved in 6.5% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend all patients with superior SPA be treated at a centre with both ENT and orbital surgeons as these may not be amenable to drainage by ENT alone.

Peripheral Ulcerative Keratitis Associated With Lichen Planus.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to report a case of peripheral ulcerative keratitis (PUK) associated with lichen planus. METHODS: A 42-year-old woman with histological confirmation of lichen planus from an oral buccal mucosa biopsy presented with bilateral peripheral stromal thinning and an epithelial defect, in keeping with PUK. RESULTS: All screening for known causes of PUK were negative, and lichen planus was presumed as the etiological factor. Oral prednisolone 1 mg/kg was initiated, alongside topical steroids and topical ciclosporin. The PUK resolved after 3 months, and a slow-tapering regimen of oral prednisolone was needed to prevent a relapse of ocular surface inflammation. Topical steroids were also tapered and discontinued after 5 months, and the ocular surface remained stable with topical ciclosporin with no relapse after 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Ocular manifestations of lichen planus are rare and mostly involve the conjunctiva; however, PUK might also develop, presumably due to its similar mechanisms with other T-cell autoimmune diseases. Systemic immunosuppression is required initially but further control of the ocular surface can be achieved successfully with topical ciclosporin.

Bilateral Giant Fornix Syndrome Associated with Serratia Marcescens.

An 82-year-old woman with macular degeneration receiving intravitreal bevacizumab, presented with 5-months history of muco-purulent blepharo-kerato-conjunctivitis, resistant to multiple topical antibiotics. Visual acuities were 20/25 right and 20/30 left. She had patent nasolacrimal systems, bilateral blepharoptosis, deep superior fornices (21mm right, 22mm left) with muco-purulent discharge, upper tarsal papillae, and punctate keratitis. Bilateral giant fornix syndrome (GFS) was diagnosed, and forniceal swabs grew Serratia marcescens and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, despite current use of intensive topical moxifloxacin. Topical preservative-free Povidone-Iodine 5% twice-daily, two-hourly weaning course of Prednisolone acetate 1% and Ciprofloxacin 250 mg twice-daily were added with complete resolution within 1 week and no recurrence after 3 months. Serratia conjunctivitis has not been previously reported in association with GFS. Conjunctival flora alteration following previous peri-procedural antibiotics and antiseptics, in the setting of a large fornix with redundant, inflamed conjunctiva, may explain the colonization with this opportunistic organism. Topical povidone-iodine 5% appears to be effective for multi-drug resistant opportunistic Serratia conjunctivitis in association with GFS.

Outcome Measures Reported in Published Clinical Research Studies in Craniosynostosis: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: The fair comparison of treatment interventions for craniosynostosis across different studies is expected to be impaired by incomplete reporting and the use of inconsistent outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This review assessed the outcomes currently reported in studies of craniosynostosis, and whether these outcomes are formally defined and prespecified in the study methods. DATA SOURCES, SEARCH TERMS, AND STUDY SELECTION: Studies were sourced via an electronic, multi-database literature search for "craniosynostosis." All primary, interventional research studies published from 2011 to 2015 were reviewed. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent researchers assessed each study for inclusion and performed the data extraction. For each study, data were extracted on the individual outcomes reported, and whether these outcomes were defined and prespecified in the methods. DATA SYNTHESIS AND RESULTS: Of 1027 studies screened, 240 were included and proceeded to data extraction. These studies included 18,365 patients.2192 separate outcomes were reported. Of these, 851 outcomes (38.8%) were clearly defined, 1394 (63.6%) were prespecified in the study methods."Clinical and functional" was the most commonly reported outcome theme (900 outcomes, 41.1%), and "patient-reported" outcomes the least (7 outcomes, 0.3%)."Duration of surgery" was the most commonly reported single outcome (reported 80 times). "Cranial index" was the most variably defined outcome (18 different definitions used). CONCLUSION: The outcomes reported following treatment interventions for craniosynostosis are incompletely and variably defined. Improving definitions for these outcomes may aid comparison of different management strategies and improve craniosynostosis care. Suboptimal prespecification of these outcomes in the study methods implied that outcome reporting bias cannot be excluded.

Watch this space: a systematic review of the use of video-based media as a patient education tool in ophthalmology.

Effective clinician-patient communication is particularly important in ophthalmology where long-term adherence to treatment is often required. However, in the context of increasingly pressurised clinics, there is a tendency to resort to written information leaflets not suited to patients with visual impairment, non-English speakers or those with low levels of literacy. Video-based media could be harnessed to enhance clinician-patient communication. This systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy of using video-based media for patient education in ophthalmology. A pre-defined search strategy was used by two independent researchers to systematically review the PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO databases. Eligible articles included peer-reviewed studies involving ophthalmology patients, who received a solely video-based educational intervention to assess for improvement in patient knowledge, behaviour and overall health-related outcomes. The search yielded 481 studies of which 31 passed initial screening. Following full-text analysis, 12 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which seven studies (58.3%) were randomised controlled trials. The majority of studies (58.3%) reported outcomes on patient comprehension with 5/7 (71%) showing statistically significant improvement after video intervention. Four studies (33.3%) reported on patient performance in a task (e.g. drop application method) or overall health-related outcome with 2/4 (50%) showing statistically significant improvement after intervention. Though more evidence is needed, the use of video-based media appears to be effective in improving patient understanding and in certain cases may ameliorate overall outcome. There is a paucity of well-designed studies and future research is required to fully examine the role of video-based media in patient education.

Assessing the Compliance of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Craniofacial Surgery Journals With the CONSORT Statement.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are gold standard assessments for healthcare interventions. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was published to maximize RCT reporting transparency. The authors conducted a systematic review to assess current compliance of RCTs published within craniofacial surgery with the CONSORT statement. METHODS: The Thomson Reuters Impact Factor Report 2016 was consulted to identify craniofacial surgery journals. PubMed was used to search for recent RCTs published within the 5 journals identified. Two independent researchers assessed each study for inclusion and performed data extraction. The primary outcome was compliance of each RCT with the CONSORT statement. Secondary outcomes were the pathology and interventions examined, impact factor, multi-versus-single center, number of authors, and publication date. RESULTS: Eighty-six studies met the inclusion criteria, across which a median of 56% (range 33%-94%) applicable CONSORT items were reported. The 5 least reported items were: trial design (3a); registration number and name of trial registry (23); who generated random allocation sequences, enrolled participants, and assigned participants to interventions (10); sample size determination (7a); mentioning "randomized trial" in the title (1a). CONCLUSION: The compliance of craniofacial surgery RCTs with the CONSORT statement requires improvement. Areas in need are identified, and methods to improve reporting transparency, are discussed.

The SCARE 2018 statement: Updating consensus Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: The SCARE Guidelines were published in 2016 to provide a structure for reporting surgical case reports. Since their publication, SCARE guidelines have been widely endorsed by authors, journal editors, and reviewers, and have helped to improve reporting transparency of case reports across a range of surgical specialties. In order to encourage further progress in reporting quality, the SCARE guidelines must themselves be kept up to date. We completed a Delphi consensus exercise to update the SCARE guidelines. METHODS: A Delphi consensus exercise was undertaken. All members of the previous Delphi group were invited to participate, in addition to researchers who have previously studied case reports, and editors from the International Journal of Surgery Case Reports. The expert group was sent an online questionnaire where they were asked to rate their agreement with proposed changes to each of the 24 items. RESULTS: 56 people agreed to participate and 45 (80%) invitees completed the survey which put forward modifications to the original guideline. The collated responses resulted in modifications. There was high agreement amongst the expert group. CONCLUSION: A modified and improved SCARE checklist is presented, after a Delphi consensus exercise was completed. The SCARE 2018 Statement: Updating Consensus Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) Guidelines.

The PROCESS 2018 statement: Updating Consensus Preferred Reporting Of CasE Series in Surgery (PROCESS) guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: The PROCESS guidelines were published in 2016 to provide a structure for reporting surgical case series. The PROCESS guidelines have since been widely endorsed by a number of journals. The requirement to report compliance with each item outlined in the PROCESS statement has improved the reporting transparency of case series across a number of surgical specialties. Here, we undertook a new Delphi consensus exercise to update the PROCESS guidelines. METHODS: All members of the previous Delphi group were invited to participate. In addition, researchers, editors, and reviewers who have previously published or reviewed case series with the International Journal of Surgery were invited to collaborate. An online questionnaire was sent to participants asking them to rate their agreement with amendments to each of the 29 items. RESULTS: 140 experts were invited to participate, 56 people agreed to participate, and 45 (80%) recipients completed the survey. There was a high level of agreement amongst the expert group, and unanimous consensus was reached in the first round. All except three proposed items were accepted, and the original guidelines were modified accordingly. CONCLUSION: A modified and improved PROCESS checklist is presented, after a Delphi consensus exercise was completed.

How to apply for the academic foundation programme.

The UK Academic Foundation Programme (AFP) is a two-year foundation programme that includes an additional "academic theme" undertaking work in research, management/leadership, or education and teaching activities. The limited number of AFP places makes the AFP application a highly competitive process. This article outlines points to consider when applying for the AFP and successful application strategies. Reviewed by successful AFP applicants, this article provides specific insight into applications to the London Academic Unit of Application (deanery).

Compliance of systematic reviews in ophthalmology with the PRISMA statement.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are becoming increasingly important methods to summarize published research. Studies of ophthalmology may present additional challenges because of their potentially complex study designs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on topics in ophthalmology to determine compliance with the PRISMA guidelines. We assessed articles published between 2010 and 2015 in the five major relevant journals with the highest impact factors. METHODS: The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched to identify systematic reviews published between January 2010 and December 2015 in the following 5 major ophthalmology journals: Progress in Retinal and Eye Research, Ophthalmology, Archives of Ophthalmology, American Journal of Ophthalmology, and Survey of Ophthalmology. The screening, identification, and scoring of articles were independently performed by two teams, and the results were submitted to statistical analysis to determine medians, ranges, and 95% CIs. RESULTS: A total of 115 articles were included. The median compliance was 15 out of 27 items (56%), the range was 5-26 (26-96%), and the inter-quartile range was 10 (37%). Compliance was highest in items related to the 'description of rationale' (item 3, 100%) and sequentially lower in 'the general interpretation of results' (item 26, 96%) and 'the inclusion of a structured summary in the abstract' (item 2, 90%). Compliance was poorest in the items 'indication of review protocol and registration' (item 5, 9%), 'specification of risk of biases that may affect the cumulative evidence' (item 15, 24%), and 'description of clear objectives in the introduction' (item 4, 26%). CONCLUSION: The reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in ophthalmology should be significantly improved. While we recommend the use of the PRISMA criteria as a guideline before journal submission, additional research aimed at identifying potential barriers to compliance may be required to improve compliance with PRISMA guidelines.