Search

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To determine the risk factors associated with developing proliferative vitreoretinopathy (PVR) from combat ocular injuries in U.S. service members. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of associated risk factors and outcomes of PVR within the Walter Reed Ocular Trauma Database. Ocular injuries in U.S. service members wounded during Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom from 2001 to 2011 were assessed, and of these all cases of PVR were studied. Principal outcome measures were the risk factors associated with PVR development and rate of final visual acuity (VA) less than 20/200. RESULTS: Eight hundred ninety eyes of 651 U.S. service members were evaluated. A total of 76 eyes (8.5%) of 66 patients developed PVR. Five patients had bilateral PVR. Nineteen patients had bilateral eye injuries. Sixty-one eyes (80.2%) had a final VA less than 20/200. PVR was found to be a significant risk factor for a poor final VA ( P < .001). Retinal detachment (RD) was found in 52 eyes (68.4%) of patients. In patients with a RD, intraocular foreign bodies (IOFBs) ( P < .001), unsuccessful repair ( P = .002), and macular hemorrhage ( P = .04) were significant risk factors for the development of PVR. Time to initial retina surgery was not found to be a risk factor for PVR development ( P = .5). Time to initial retina surgery was available in 41 patients and the time to surgery on average was 22.56 days (range: 3 to 87 days). CONCLUSIONS: PVR occurs frequently in combat trauma and is a significant cause of poor final VA. In patients with PVR and RD, injuries caused by an IOFB, macular hemorrhage, or unsuccessful repair were significant risk factors for the development of PVR. [ Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2020;51:556–563.]

PURPOSE: To assess whether densitometry analysis appropriately monitors the development of haze in myopic patients after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) when compared to subjective slit-lamp haze grade examinations, and whether sutureless cryo-preserved amniotic membrane reduced postoperative haze development when compared to the standard bandage contact lens. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort at the Center for Refractive Surgery, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, a secondary analysis of prospectively collected data was performed. In the prospective study, participants underwent PRK for myopia. Postoperatively, a standard bandage contact lens was applied to the dominant eye and a sutureless cryo-preserved amniotic membrane graft to the nondominant eye. Participants were evaluated at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively for haze formation and corneal densitometry using slit-lamp biomicroscopy and Scheimpflug imaging, respectively. RESULTS: Densitometry measurements at 6 months postoperatively were positively and significantly associated with the presence or absence of haze as assessed by slit-lamp examination in 39 patients (78 eyes; age range: 21 to 44 years). Eyes with increased densitometry measurements had 2.3 to 3.4 times the odds ( P ⩽ .014) of having clinical haze on slit-lamp examination. Eyes with the amniotic membrane graft showed a positive correlation with increased corneal densitometry throughout most layers of the cornea. CONCLUSIONS: Densitometry analysis appears to be a useful tool to supplement slit-lamp examination in monitoring haze development after PRK. The amniotic membrane failed to show a reduction in corneal densitometry in myopic eyes after PRK. [ J Refract Surg . 2020;36(5):293–299.]

PURPOSE: To compare contrast sensitivity among participants undergoing wavefront-guided or wavefront-optimized photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) or LASIK for the treatment of myopia or myopic astigmatism 12 months after surgery. METHODS: In a prospective, randomized clinical trial, 215 participants with myopia ranging from −0.50 to −7.25 diopters (D) and less than −3.50 D of manifest astigmatism electing to undergo either LASIK or PRK were randomized to receive wavefront-guided or wavefront-optimized treatment. Corrected Super Vision Test (Precision Vision, La Salle, IL) high contrast and small letter contrast sensitivity, uncorrected postoperative contrast sensitivity function, and uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity were measured preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: There was a significant difference within each of the four groups over time when measuring high contrast visual acuity ( P < .001) and small letter contrast sensitivity ( P < .001), with the most significant decrease occurring 1 month postoperatively. However, there were no significant differences when comparing the four groups for high contrast sensitivity ( P = .22) or small letter contrast sensitivity ( P = .06). The area under the logarithm of contrast sensitivity function did not differ significantly over time ( P = .09) or between groups ( P = .16). A pairwise comparison of preoperative to 12-month CDVA showed a significant improvement in all groups ( P < .017). The change in CDVA was also significantly different between groups as determined by one-way analysis of variance ( P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: Wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized PRK and LASIK procedures maintained high contrast, small letter contrast sensitivity, and contrast sensitivity function 12 months postoperatively. Although the recovery period for visual performance was longer for PRK versus LASIK, there was no significant difference in treatment type or treatment profile at 12 months postoperatively. [ J Refract Surg. 2018;34(9):590–596.]

PURPOSE: To evaluate visual outcomes following epi-LASIK compared to photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). METHODS: Of a total 294 patients aged ≥21 years, 145 (290 eyes) underwent epi-LASIK and 149 (298 eyes) underwent PRK for low to moderate myopia or myopic astigmatism. Epi-LASIK was performed with the Amadeus II epikeratome (Abbott Medical Optics) and PRK with the Amoils rotary epithelial brush (Innovative Excimer Solutions). All ablations were performed using the same excimer laser system. Outcome measures included intraoperative complications, corneal reepithelialization, postoperative pain, uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), corneal haze, and quality of vision. RESULTS: Mean preoperative MRSE was −2.97±1.19 diopters (D) for epi-LASIK versus −2.95±1.06 D for PRK. Complete reepithelialization was achieved by postoperative day 4 in 46.9% of epi-LASIK eyes versus 92.4% of PRK eyes, with superior UDVA at postoperative day 1 in the PRK group ( P =.002). Using Fisher exact test, a significantly higher percentage of epi-LASIK eyes compared to PRK eyes achieved 20/15 or better at 1 month (25.8% vs 17.8%, P =.031), 3 months (62.3% vs 49.3%, P =.004), 6 months (77.1% vs 57.9%, P P =.002). A change in MRSE >0.50 D occurred in 8.4% of epi-LASIK eyes within the 3- and 12-month interval versus 17.7% of PRK eyes ( P =.04). No differences were noted between the two procedures in CDVA or clinically significant haze. CONCLUSIONS: Epi-LASIK showed superior refractive efficacy and stability but required more time for wound healing, resulting in inferior early visual outcomes and a tendency to overcorrect higher refractive errors compared to PRK. Both treatments were safe and comparable in terms of pain and haze formation.