Seminars in Ophthalmology最新文献

Purpose: To compare the long-term outcomes of mucosal-sparing mechanical endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy (MMED) for primary acquired nasolacrimal duct obstruction (PANDO) with or without silicone intubation.

Methods: An 11-year follow-up study of the Silicone intubation in Endoscopic Dacryocystorhinostomy (SEND) randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted at a university-affiliated dacryology clinic from December 2019 to March 2023. Questionnaires on symptoms, anterior segment examination, endoscopic examination with functional endoscopic dye test (FEDT) and FICI grading, and ostial size measurements using Image J software were performed by a masked ophthalmologist. The primary outcome was surgical success, defined by Munk's score ≤1 and a positive fluorescein endoscopic dye test. Secondary outcomes included risk factors for failure and outcomes of revision surgeries.

Results: Fifty-three of the original 118 patients were evaluated at 155 ± 21 (136-218) months postoperatively. Seventy-seven percent (46/60) ostia remained successful, including 70% (19/27) of unstented and 82% (27/33) of stented ostia (p = .3). Stented ostia had larger size (p = .003), but this did not confer higher success (p = .14). Successful ostia had higher FICI scores and better ostial dynamicity (p < .05). Ostium movement was the only parameter associated with surgical success on multivariate analysis (OR 13.1, p = .01). Four (1 stented) underwent revision MMED, intraoperative mitomycin-C, and 12-week intubation. All revision ostia were functional after 141 ± 43 months.

Conclusions: Surgical success of MMED after 11-years was 77%, a notable reduction compared to 96% success at 1-year. Statistical advantage of silicone intubation for primary MMED was not demonstrated, though clinically, stented ostia had a higher success (82% vs 70%). The presence of a dynamic internal common opening was highly associated with long-term surgical success.

Background: In the past few decades, the primary management for uveal melanoma has evolved from enucleation to eye-preserving treatments. However, despite achieving a high rate of local tumour control, complications following eye-preserving treatments still occur and are partly responsible for functional loss and secondary enucleation.

Methods: A literature review by a broad international panel.

Results: We summarised the current literature on utilizing vitreoretinal (VR) surgery for managing the complications of uveal melanoma. We also provided insights from the authors' personal experience and practical recommendations for clinical care.

Conclusions: With the advancement of VR instruments and surgical techniques and the combination of VR and ocular oncology knowledge ("Onco-VR"), it is now possible to manage or even prevent complications such as vitreous haemorrhage, retinal detachment, and toxic tumour syndrome.

Purpose: To identify prevalence of and risk factors for loss to follow up (LTFU) among a national cohort of patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG).

Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from the IRIS® Registry (Intelligent Research in Sight) database from 2014 through 2019 to assess LTFU among adult patients with POAG. POAG patients with at least one clinical encounter in 2014 were included. LTFU was defined as exceeding one year without a clinical encounter during the study period.

Results: Among 553,663 glaucoma patients, 277,019 (50%) became LTFU, of whom 184,548 (67%) never returned to care and 92,471 (33%) re-established follow-up after a lapse. Risk of LTFU was greatest among those younger than 60 years (RR = 1.38; 95% CI: 1.36-1.39) or older than 80 years (RR = 1.39; 95% CI: 1.38-1.40) compared to those in their 60s. Compared to White race, risk for LTFU was highest among Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (RR = 1.24; 95% CI: 1.17-1.31), Hispanic ethnicity (RR = 1.19; 95% CI: 1.18-1.20), and Black race (RR = 1.10; 95% CI: 1.09-1.11). Medicare insurance was associated with lower risk of LTFU (RR = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.78-0.79), whereas unknown/missing/no insurance was associated with greater risk (RR = 1.33; 95% CI: 1.32-1.34), compared to private insurance. Compared to mild-stage POAG, risk of LTFU was higher for moderate-stage (RR = 1.10; 95% CI: 1.08-1.13) and severe-stage disease (RR = 1.35; 95% CI: 1.32-1.38).

Conclusion: We found a 50% prevalence of LTFU among POAG patients in the IRIS Registry over a 6-year study period, with greater risk among minority groups and those with more advanced disease.

Purpose: The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between research activity and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding status of the United States (US) academic ophthalmologists.

Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of bibliometric data was conducted. The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Reports (rePORTER) website was utilized to identify ophthalmology departments in the US that received NIH funding. Affiliated faculty from these institutions were then identified using NIH rePORTER and institutional websites. H-index was calculated using the Scopus database, and the NIH iCite tool was used to determine the Relative Citation Ratio (RCR). The h-index and w-RCR quantified research productivity, while m-RCR measured research impact.

Results: Data on 2688 faculty members from 66 departments we re identified, of which 21% were NIH-funded. Faculty members who received NIH-funding had significantly greater research productivity and impact as measured by h-index (32.5 vs 16.6; p < .001), m-RCR (2.2 vs 1.6; p < .001), and w-RCR (147.2 vs 70.1; p < .001) than their non-funded peers. When stratified by academic rank, NIH-funded faculty still had significantly higher h-index (16.1 vs 7.9; p < .001), m-RCR (2.2 vs 1.4; p < .001), and w-RCR (63.2 vs 61.8; p < .001) than non-funded peers. A similar trend was observed among non-tenured faculty members.

Conclusion: NIH funding is associated with higher research productivity and impact among US academic ophthalmologists as measured by h-index and RCR, which suggests that NIH funding may be a critical factor in enhancing scholarly contributions of ophthalmologists.  These findings underscore the importance of continued investment in NIH funding to foster high-impact research within the field of ophthalmology.

Objective: To present marginal reflex distance (MRD-1) outcomes based on intra-operative quantification of levator aponeurosis advancement.

Methods: Forty-eight patients with unilateral aponeurotic ptosis underwent anterior levator aponeurosis advancement. Distance of advancement intra-operatively was compared with MRD-1 outcomes at the immediate postoperative sitting, approximately 1 week, and 1 month period. Surgical success was defined as a symmetric MRD-1 or an MRD-1 within 1 millimeter of the contralateral eyelid.

Results: Most MRD-1 exhibited the following trends: 1) initial decrease at about 1 week and increase at 1 month (n = 11), 2) initial increase at about 1 week with levelling at 1 month (n = 8), and 3) increasing through time (n = 7). Success rate significantly decreased through time (p = .0464). The change in proportion of successful and failed surgeries was insignificant. Surgical revision rate was 10.4%.

Conclusion: Levator aponeurosis advancement distances do not correlate with MRD-1 outcomes linearly. MRD-1 exhibited stability over time with a satisfactory success rate at 1 month.

Purpose: Patients are using online search modalities to learn about their eye health. While Google remains the most popular search engine, the use of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT has increased. Cataract surgery is the most common surgical procedure in the US, and there is limited data on the quality of online information that populates after searches related to cataract surgery on search engines such as Google and LLM platforms such as ChatGPT. We identified the most common patient frequently asked questions (FAQs) about cataracts and cataract surgery and evaluated the accuracy, safety, and readability of the answers to these questions provided by both Google and ChatGPT. We demonstrated the utility of ChatGPT in writing notes and creating patient education materials.

Methods: The top 20 FAQs related to cataracts and cataract surgery were recorded from Google. Responses to the questions provided by Google and ChatGPT were evaluated by a panel of ophthalmologists for accuracy and safety. Evaluators were also asked to distinguish between Google and LLM chatbot answers. Five validated readability indices were used to assess the readability of responses. ChatGPT was instructed to generate operative notes, post-operative instructions, and customizable patient education materials according to specific readability criteria.

Results: Responses to 20 patient FAQs generated by ChatGPT were significantly longer and written at a higher reading level than responses provided by Google (p < .001), with an average grade level of 14.8 (college level). Expert reviewers were correctly able to distinguish between a human-reviewed and chatbot generated response an average of 31% of the time. Google answers contained incorrect or inappropriate material 27% of the time, compared with 6% of LLM generated answers (p < .001). When expert reviewers were asked to compare the responses directly, chatbot responses were favored (66%).

Conclusions: When comparing the responses to patients' cataract FAQs provided by ChatGPT and Google, practicing ophthalmologists overwhelming preferred ChatGPT responses. LLM chatbot responses were less likely to contain inaccurate information. ChatGPT represents a viable information source for eye health for patients with higher health literacy. ChatGPT may also be used by ophthalmologists to create customizable patient education materials for patients with varying health literacy.