Search

Purpose: Safety glasses are an important measure to prevent blindness, especially in one- eyed patients. However, patient compliance with eye protection is often limited. Unlike previous studies that described protective eyewear wearing in anophthalmic patients, this study analyzed their usage in functionally one-eyed children, having a significantly reduced visual acuity in one eye, determining common obstacles to their use., Methods: A survey-based study analyzing protective eyewear usage in children with one eye vision loss (mean logarithm of the Minimum Angle of Resolution (logMAR) visual acuity ≤ 0.7)., Results: This study included 83 functionally one-eyed children (44 males), who received a recommendation to wear safety glasses. Ninety-nine percent of their caregivers were aware of this recommendation; however, 31% of them did not know the glasses' true purpose. Regarding actual usage, only 29 (35%) children wore safety glasses at least 90% of the day, 26 (31%) children wore them part-time (10-90% of the day) and 28 (34%) wore them rarely or never at all (< 10% of the day). Compliance was higher when glasses provided optical correction. Reasons provided for non-compliance included: discomfort, appearance, cost and vision reduction. Many respondents recollected incidents in which the glasses prevented an eye injury, and less commonly an eye injury occurring while the child was not wearing eye protection., Conclusions: Compliance with safety glasses in functionally one-eyed children is limited. Emphasizing that numerous gaps and barriers need to be bridged to improve eyewear protection in these children to prevent trauma in the better-seeing eye with its devastating lifestyle effect., Key Messages: WHAT IS KNOWN : Anophthalmic patients often do not wear protective glasses, which are needed to prevent trauma to their only remaining eye., What Is New: Non-anophthalmic children with reduced visual acuity in one eye use protective glasses even less often, even when doing sports. Common reasons for not wearing safety glasses include: discomfort, dislike of self-appearance with glasses, and lens-induced vision reduction., Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethical approval: All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the (Schneider Medical Center and Tel Aviv Medical Center) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Schneider Medical Center approval number RMC 0375–18 and Tel Aviv Medical Center approval number TLV 0154–18. Informed consent: A telephone Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study. Conflict of interest: None of the authors have any conflict of interest to disclose. All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Comparing the surgical and refractive outcomes of congenital ptosis repair by different surgical techniques., Methods: This longitudinal cohort study reviewed medical records of 101 patients who underwent congenital ptosis repair, from 2006 to 2022 in a single center. Analysis was performed for demographic background, co-morbidities, pre-operative and post-operative ocular examinations and refraction, complications, reoperations, and success rates., Results: Following exclusion criteria, we remained with 80 patients (103 eyes) who underwent either frontalis muscle suspension surgery (FMS) (55 eyes) or levator muscle surgery (LM) (48 eyes). Patients in the FMS group were younger (mean age of 3.1 vs. 6.0 years, p < 0.001) and had worse pre-operative ocular assessments including prevalence of visual axis involvement, chin-up head position, ptosis severity, and levator muscle function (LF) (p < 0.001). Both groups had a 25% rate of reoperation, however while in the LM group reoperation was required solely due to undercorrection, in the FMS group various indications prompted reoperation. Success rate was higher in the FMS group (87.3% vs. 60.4%, p = 0.002). While pre-operative astigmatism was higher in the LM group (p = 0.019), no significant differences were observed post-operatively. Spherical and spherical equivalent changes over time were significant only in the FMS group (p = 0.010 and p = 0.004, respectively)., Conclusions: Within our cohort, a higher success rate of congenital ptosis repair was observed among patients who underwent FMS compared to LM, despite similar reoperation rates. In cases of severe ptosis and moderate LF, LM demonstrated a lower-than-anticipated success rate. Astigmatic changes following ptosis repair were not consistent in either group., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)