Search

Aims: To determine endophthalmitis rates and risk factors following intraocular surgeries in the Medicare population., Methods: Retrospective, cross-sectional study from 2016 to 2019 in Medicare fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. 100% Medicare claims were used to identify eyes that underwent intraocular surgery. Exclusion criteria included eyes that had intraocular surgery 42 days before or after and eyes in patients with a history of endophthalmitis within 12 months., Results: 9 744 400 intraocular surgeries were performed among Medicare beneficiaries from 2016 to 2019. A 42-day postoperative endophthalmitis rate was 0.09%. Endophthalmitis rate by surgery type was 0.43% for corneal transplant, 0.36% for secondary intraocular lens (IOL), 0.24% for retina, 0.16% for glaucoma, 0.11% for cataract combined with other procedures and 0.08% for cataract surgeries alone. On multivariable analysis, the risk of endophthalmitis was increased for all intraocular surgery types when compared with cataract surgeries; adjusted OR (aOR) 5.30 (p<0.01) for corneal transplant, aOR 4.50 (p<0.01) for secondary IOL, aOR 3.00 (p<0.01) for retina, aOR 1.93 (p<0.01) for glaucoma, aOR 1.45 (p<0.01) for combined cataract surgeries. Increased risk of developing endophthalmitis was associated with older age (≥85 vs 65-75 years: aOR 1.36; p<0.01), male sex (aOR 1.20; p<0.001) and greater Charlson Comorbidity Index (≥7 vs 0: aOR 1.79; p<0.01)., Conclusions: Postoperative endophthalmitis rate after intraocular surgeries was 0.09% between 2016 and 2019 for Medicare beneficiaries. Endophthalmitis rates were highest for corneal transplant surgeries followed by secondary IOL surgeries and lowest for cataract surgeries. Older age, male gender and higher comorbidity index were associated with risk of endophthalmitis., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Aim: To assess whether povidone-iodine provided any benefit over and above a standard regimen of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of corneal ulcers., Methods: All patients diagnosed with corneal ulcers presenting for care at a primary eye care clinic in rural Nepal were randomised to a standard protocol of antibiotic therapy versus standard therapy plus 2.5% povidone-iodine every 2 hours for 2 weeks. The main outcomes were corrected visual acuity and presence, size, and position of corneal scarring in the affected eye at 2-4 months following treatment initiation., Results: 358 patients were randomised and 81% were examined at follow up. The two groups were comparable before treatment. At follow up, 3.9% in the standard therapy and 6.9% in the povidone-iodine group had corrected visual acuity worse than 20/400 (relative risk (RR) 1.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 5.03). 9.4% in the standard therapy and 13.1% in the povidone-iodine group had corrected visual acuity worse than 20/60 (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.77), and 17.0% and 18.8% had scars in the visual axis in each of these groups, respectively (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.82)., Conclusions: A small proportion of patients with corneal ulceration treated in this setting had poor visual outcomes. The addition of povidone-iodine to standard antibiotic therapy did not improve visual outcomes, although this design was unable to assess whether povidone-iodine on its own would have resulted in comparable visual outcomes to that of standard therapy.

Aims: To estimate the incidence of ocular injury in rural Nepal and identify details about these injuries that predict poor visual outcome., Methods: Reports of ocular trauma were collected from 1995 through 2000 from patients presenting to the only eye care clinic in Sarlahi district, Nepal. Patients were given a standard free eye examination and interviewed about the context of their injury. Follow up examination was performed 2-4 months after the initial injury., Results: 525 cases of incident ocular injury were reported, with a mean age of 28 years. Using census data, the incidence was 0.65 per 1000 males per year, and 0.38 per 1000 females per year. The most common types of injury were lacerating and blunt, with the majority occurring at home or in the fields. Upon presentation to the clinic, 26.4% of patients had a best corrected visual acuity worse than 20/60 in the injured eye, while 9.6% had visual acuity worse than 20/400. 82% were examined at follow up: 11.2% of patients had visual acuity worse than 20/60 and 4.6% had vision worse than 20/400. A poor visual outcome was associated with increased age, care sought at a site other than the eye clinic, and severe injury. 3% of patients were referred for further care at an eye hospital at the initial visit; 7% had sought additional care in the interim between visits, with this subset representing a more severe spectrum of injuries., Conclusions: The detrimental effects of delayed care or care outside of the specialty eye clinic may reflect geographic or economic barriers to care. For optimal visual outcomes, patients who are injured in a rural setting should recognise the injury and seek early care at a specialty eye care facility. Findings from our study suggest that trained non-ophthalmologists may be able to clinically manage many eye injuries encountered in a rural setting in the "developing" world, reducing the demand for acute services of ophthalmologists in remote locations of this highly agricultural country.

Background/aims: To assess patient preferences for different anaesthesia management strategies during cataract surgery., Methods: Cross sectional clinic based study of patient preferences for anaesthesia management strategies. Patients rated their preferences using a linear rating scale from 0 to 100., Results: Subjects tended to prefer block to topical anaesthesia and oral to intravenous sedation. On a scale from 0 to 100, subjects preferred oral to intravenous sedation and block to topical anaesthesia by about 8 points., Conclusions: When given the choice of four different anaesthesia management strategies, 72% of the study subjects preferred block anaesthesia to topical anaesthesia. More patients chose to have oral sedation than intravenous sedation. These findings indicate that patients may prefer anaesthesia management approaches other than the ones they are currently being offered.

Aims: To report the item specific responses of the VF-14 in a population of patients undergoing cataract surgery in their first eye and to determine whether or not the VF-14 can be reduced without compromising its performance as an index of cataract related visual impairment., Methods: The item specific responses to the VF-14 were analysed before (771 patients) and 4 months after (552 patients) cataract surgery in one eye to determine if the VF-14 index can be reduced without compromising its performance. Patients studied were selected from a cross sectional longitudinal study of patients undergoing cataract surgery in 72 ophthalmologist's offices located in three metropolitan regions of the United States., Results: Pairwise correlations between items in the VF-14 were all less than 0.6, indicating that no items could be removed solely on the basis of redundancy. 10 items correlated moderately with change in trouble, and 11 correlated moderately with change in satisfaction (r >0.15) at 4 months after cataract extraction. Eleven items demonstrated an effect size >0.4 at 4 months. These 11 items were either important for detecting cataract related functional disability or for quantifying the extent to which cataract impaired function. Additionally, 11 items were needed to detect adequately individuals with functional impairment. Three items (recognising people, cooking, and reading large print) were less responsive to cataract extraction and were more strongly associated with ocular comorbidities., Conclusions: While previous reports indicate that the VF-14 can be significantly shortened, our analysis only justifies removing three items. While the resulting VF-11 has properties similar to the VF-14, the limited time savings do not justify altering this already validated instrument.