Orbital inflammatory disease.

Orbital inflammatory disease (OID), commonly known as orbital pseudotumour, is an inflammatory disease of unknown cause. It has different forms of presentation and different degrees of severity. Its variable nature is the main cause for this disease to be misdiagnosed and misclassified. The prognosis of OID depends on the tissues affected and the histology. OID usually responds favourably to systemic steroid treatment. However, empiric steroids may mask other underlying diseases that respond well to this treatment as well, namely, IgG4-related disease or lymphoproliferative disorders. This fact has led to controversy among various authors as some recommend performing a biopsy in most of the cases, whereas others defend that this procedure should only be performed if the patient has not responded to empiric steroid treatment. Although steroids have been the mainstream treatment of OID, the side effects, relapse rates and lack of response in some cases have resulted in them being replaced by immunosuppressive and immunomodulator therapies that currently stand as a key steroid-sparing treatment option, in addition to radiotherapy and surgery. The aim of this review is to update the evidence on the diagnosis and treatment of OID.

Enfermedad inflamatoria orbitaria idiopática / Orbital inflammatory disease

La enfermedad inflamatoria orbitaria idiopática (EIOI), comúnmente conocida como pseudotumor orbitario, es una enfermedad inflamatoria de etiología desconocida. Sus síntomas pueden ser muy variables tanto en intensidad, gravedad, formas de presentación o gravedad. Esta heterogeneidad ha condicionado que sea una entidad difícil de definir y clasificar. El pronóstico de la EIOI depende de su localización, presentación e histología. La EIOI suele responder favorablemente a los corticoides sistémicos, sin embargo, este hecho puede hacer que la entidad sea confundida con otras enfermedades que también tienen buena respuesta a corticoides, como la enfermedad relacionada con la IgG4 y las enfermedades linfoproliferativas. Esta controversia ha alzado una polémica entre autores que defienden la realización de biopsia previa al tratamiento en la mayoría de los casos, frente a otros que afirman que la biopsia debe indicarse en lesiones que no responden adecuadamente al tratamiento médico empírico. Si bien los corticoides se sitúan como los protagonistas de la EIOI, los efectos secundarios, las tasas de recidivas y la falta de respuesta de algunos subtipos han permitido el paso a agentes inmunosupresores e inmunomoduladores que ocupan un escalón fundamental en la terapia combinada o ahorradora de corticoides, junto con la radioterapia y la cirugía. El objetivo de esta revisión es actualizar la evidencia sobre el diagnóstico y tratamiento de la EIOI.

Orbital inflammatory disease (OID), commonly known as orbital pseudotumour, is an inflammatory disease of unknown cause. It has different forms of presentation and different degrees of severity. Its variable nature is the main cause for this disease to be misdiagnosed and misclassified. The prognosis of OID depends on the tissues affected and the histology. OID usually responds favourably to systemic steroid treatment. However, empiric steroids may mask other underlying diseases that respond well to this treatment as well, namely, IgG4-related disease or lymphoproliferative disorders. This fact has led to controversy among various authors as some recommend performing a biopsy in most of the cases, whereas others defend that this procedure should only be performed if the patient has not responded to empiric steroid treatment. Although steroids have been the mainstream treatment of OID, the side effects, relapse rates and lack of response in some cases have resulted in them being replaced by immunosuppressive and immunomodulator therapies that currently stand as a key steroid-sparing treatment option, in addition to radiotherapy and surgery. The aim of this review is to update the evidence on the diagnosis and treatment of OID.

Study of the efficiency and workflow of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery in a Spanish public hospital.

BACKGROUND: To assess the time-efficiency of a designated operating room (OR) workflow in the introduction of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS, LenSx, Alcon®). The study was carried out in a public hospital a with high-volume of procedures. METHODS: We performed this prospective, controlled, surgical intervention study in the ophthalmology department of a Spanish tertiary referral public hospital. A total of 167 eyes were enrolled, including 62 eyes undergoing conventional phacoemulsification surgery. In phase I, patients were assigned either to FLACS-I (n=63) or conventional phacoemulsification surgery (n=62). One surgeon operated the femtosecond laser, and another completed the procedure, while a third performed conventional phacoemulsification. In the second phase (FLACS-II), all the surgeries were FLACS (n=42). One surgeon performed the FLACS procedure, and two different surgeons completed the surgeries in separate ORs. Surgical and turnover times of all the patients were recorded. RESULTS: Preparation time was statistically significantly lower in FLACS-I and FLACS-II (P<0.001), whereas the duration of the cataract procedure per se was higher in FLACS-II compared to conventional phacoemulsification (P=0.03). Phacoemulsification energy was higher in FLACS-II compared to FLACS-I (P=0.01), whereas laser-related surgical time was lower (P=0.001). Surgical complications and total surgical time showed no statistically significant differences between any of the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests a time-efficient and suitable workflow model for FLACS, considering the specific requirements and restrictions of a fully booked public hospital. Even so, we have shown that the FLACS procedure does not take longer than conventional phacoemulsification when following a detailed plan for OR workflow. In addition, our data reflect an improvement in FLACS surgical times with ongoing experience. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03931629 (retrospectively registered).