Search

Background: As the primary burden of treating COVID-19 patients began to ease in the United Kingdom, ophthalmology clinic volume within the National Health Service has since recovered. Alarmingly, the rate of non-attendance remains higher than the pre-pandemic level. Purpose: The purpose was to assess how the perceived risk of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) influences the willingness of individuals with sight-threatening macular conditions to attend intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injection appointments during the second wave of the pandemic. Methods: This prospective cross-sectional survey was conducted at the Macular Treatment Centre, Manchester Royal Eye Hospital. Patients who missed their appointment in January 2021 were invited to complete an anonymous survey over the telephone. The survey consisted of two parts: (1) a 23-item questionnaire aiming to assess fear of contracting COVID-19 in different hospital-related settings; and (2) the validated COVID-19 Anxiety Syndrome Scale (C-19ASS) to evaluate COVID-19-related anxiety. Results: A total of 104 patients agreed to participate in the survey. Only a small proportion of patients believed COVID-19 vaccination (23 out of 88, 26.1%) had influenced their willingness to attend injection appointments. Majority of patients felt concerned about contracting COVID-19 during hospital appointments (n = 63, 60.6%). Only a minority of patients (n = 36, 34.6%) agreed with the hospital guidance on minimising clinical examinations during clinic visit. The C-19ASS was significantly higher in female patients, those older than 70 years and those with mobility issues. Higher C-19ASS, older age and living alone were predictors of clinic nonattendance. Conclusion: COVID-19 anxiety and fear of viral exposure could adversely affect patient adherence to clinic appointments during the pandemic. Particular attention should be provided to older patients, those who live alone and patients with impaired mobility. This is particularly relevant as hospital eye services across the world are in the process of restarting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A best evidence topic in thoracic surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was: Does repeat thymectomy improve symptoms in patients with refractory myasthenia gravis after thymectomy? A total of 189 papers were found using the reported search, of which seven represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The outcome measures included operative mortality and morbidity, as well as long-term remission rate. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. All the studies were small (4-21 patients), retrospective, single institutional case series. There was considerable heterogeneity in the studies. The interval between the first and second operation ranged from less than a year to over 10 years. The operative approach of the initial operation included transcervical, trans-sternal and substernal approaches. The maximal medical therapy received by the patients prior to reoperation varied from anticholinesterase alone to cytotoxic therapy and regular plasmapheresis. The severity of symptoms ranged from Osserman Class IIa to V. The operative approach to re-thymectomy included resternotomy, thoracoscopy and a combination of both. There was no perioperative mortality. One study reported injury to the innominate vein at resternotomy in 3 (14.3%) patients. One study reported myasthenic crisis in 2 patients in the postoperative period. Only one study reported complete remission in 2 patients. In general, however, 52-95% of patients reported some improvement. There was no consistent, objective measure of improvement in these studies. We conclude that repeat thymectomy for patients with refractory myasthenia gravis after previous thymectomy is safe especially for patients whose first procedure was transcervical. Complete remissions are rare but, in these small series, 60-70% of patients report improvement. Clinical improvement appears to be associated with the presence of residual thymic tissue at the second operation, but these cannot be reliably identified on preoperative imaging. Patient selection remains driven by symptoms.