Oman Journal of Ophthalmology最新文献

Background: Prolonged screen time and abnormal postures can cause backache, neck pain, headache, and finger pain. Studies have shown that excessive usage of gadgets has increased during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, causing health and ocular hazards. This study used qualitative research methods to understand the health and ocular effects of gadget usage following the COVID-19 postlockdown in optometry students.

Materials and methods: A qualitative study using a semi-structured face-to-face interview was conducted for undergraduate and postgraduate students in different optometry institutes who underwent at least 3 months of online teaching learning during the pandemic after obtaining informed consent. The interviews were conducted online; the sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. Thematic analyses were conducted to understand the challenges faced.

Results: Twenty participants were interviewed, of which 70% (n = 14) were females. Thematic analysis identified seven major themes: gadget usage (frequency of usage, type of device, and time spent), challenges during online classes (comprehension, distraction, and network issues), ocular effects (asthenopic symptoms and ocular symptoms), health effects (musculoskeletal disorders), ways to relieve symptoms, recreational activities (breaks and entertainment), and environment and ergonomics (posture and study area and preferred lighting). All the participants reported ocular/health-related symptoms, including eye strain, burning sensation, headache, back pain, finger pain, and neck pain post the lockdown period due to prolonged gadget usage and poor ergonomic postures.

Conclusions: Given the significant increase in digital usage following the pandemic, the study's findings are currently relevant. The prolonged usage of gadgets and poor ergonomic postures have led to ocular and musculoskeletal problems among optometry students. To improve gadget usage without any health-related consequences, students should have access to information regarding ergonomics, increasing the blink rate, and taking regular digital breaks.

Context: Diabetic eyes suffer from variety of complications including macular edema. Cataract surgery is the most commonly done procedure throughout the world and majority would be diabetics. As pseudophakic-cystoid macular edema (CME) is a known complication following cataract surgery, our study concentrated on finding the role of prophylactic topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on change in total macular volume (TMV) postcataract surgery in diabetic eyes.

Aims: To evaluate the role of NSAIDs on change in TMV postcataract surgery in diabetic eyes.

Settings and design: Retrospective comparative study.

Subjects and methods: Data were collected from the medical records department of our institute constituting diabetics undergoing cataract surgery from June-2021 to February-2022. Eighty diabetic eyes were divided into two groups: one group were given topical nepafenac drops and another who were not given. Demographic details, diabetic retinopathy stage, preoperative optical coherence tomography (OCT), and postoperative day (POD) 7, day 28, and 3 months OCT were collected. Statistical analysis was done to compare the change in TMV between both the groups.

Statistical analysis used: Student's t-test and Chi-squared/Fisher's exact test were employed to find statistically significant differences between the two groups using SPSS-22.0 software.

Results: In our study, the mean age in the group with nepafenac was 60.93 ± 5.86 years and 31 (77.5%) had moderate nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR), and in the group without nepafenac, the mean age was 58.53 ± 7.41 years and 30 (75%) had moderate NPDR. Majority of the individuals in the study group were known diabetic for 2-5 years. Change in TMV at POD 3 months among two groups was not statistically significant; P = 0.758 (P < 0.05-significant).

Conclusions: Our study concluded that topical-NSAIDs played no role in postoperative period following cataract surgery with respect to change in TMV in diabetic eyes. Thus, prophylactic usage of topical-NSAIDs can be a burden on patient as it has no role in prevention of pseudophakic-CME in those with the duration of diabetes mellitus <5 years and with mild-to-moderate NPDR.

Ophthalmic examination of a patient with active COVID-19 infection can be challenging. We describe a woman with active COVID-19 infection who was misdiagnosed initially as having conjunctivitis and later presented with acute angle-closure attack in both eyes. Intraocular pressure (IOP) on presentation was about 40 mmHg in both eyes. She was on multiple medications for her COVID-19 infection. A nonpupillary block mechanism of secondary angle closure was suspected and laser iridotomy was avoided. Her IOP was well controlled with medications. Due to significant cataract, phacoemulsification with IOL was performed using femto-assisted rhexis in lieu of the postdilatation IOP spike. There was good IOP control and 6/6 vision postoperatively. Bilateral angle closure of probable multifactorial cause can occur in COVID-19-positive patients.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the amount of sensitivity and specificity of the slit-light (SL) method in the diagnosis of ocular cyclotorsion.

Materials and methods: One hundred and twenty eyes of 60 individuals (10-60 years old), with mean visual acuity of 0.08 ± 0.14 LogMAR, were divided into two groups (normal and torsion groups). Individuals without ocular motility disorder were selected as normal and patients with extraocular motility disorders and oblique muscle dysfunctions as the torsion group. The sensitivity and specificity of SL in the diagnosis of ocular torsion were measured by masked investigators and compared to fundus photography (FP). Inter- and intraobserver variability of these techniques was also determined.

Results: The amounts of sensitivity and specificity of SL, measured by the first examiner, were 60% and 92% for intorsion and 50% and 96% for extorsion assessment, respectively. These amounts were 53% and 95% for intorsion, and 54% and 97% for extorsion by the second examiner. The contingency coefficient between the two examiners was 68.6% for SL. This amount was 61% between FP and SL for the first examiner and 63% for the second. The contingency coefficient for the repeatability of SL was 72.2% for the first examiner and 75.7% for the second. This amount was 71.2% between the two examiners.

Conclusion: SL can be considered a useful method for the diagnosis of cyclotorsion.