Search

Objective To describe the steps, hurdles, and recommendations for the implementation of ISBCS evidence-based protocol at a high-volume Canadian tertiary care centre. Design Quality improvement study Participants A total of 406 patients who underwent ISBCS from July 2020 to December 2020. Patients were selected based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria including psychosocial factors, refractive error and consent. This initiative impacted staff at all levels involved with cataract surgery. Methods The Model of Improvement framework was used and involved numerous discussions with multidisciplinary teams of ophthalmologists, nursing and support staff, management, pharmacists, and medical device reprocessing teams. This initiative was created and refined via a thorough review of the literature and current best practices. It was implemented in July 2020 after a nursing “huddle”. Any adverse outcomes and overall impact were collected from various levels of staff involved. Results Each eye was treated as a separate surgery with a “double time out” per bilateral case. Additional measures were taken to ensure different lot numbers for medications, equipment and materials. This practice increased surgical volume approximately by 25% and reduced the number of patient visits by 50%, reducing potential COVID-19 exposure. Conclusions The resulting protocol from our study may be useful to other centres wishing to integrate ISBCS, as one example of successful implementation. Of the 406 cases of ISBCS performed, we report zero cases of TASS or endophthalmitis. In times of decreased elective surgeries, ISBCS is a safe and effective option to supplement surgical volume and provide significant patient benefits.

Objective To describe a new/modified technique to manage posterior vitreous pressure (PVP) during penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) and report a small series. Design Retrospective interventional case series and technique description. Participants PKP eyes necessitating mattress suture placement owing to PVP. Methods Retrospective chart review from 2016 to 2019 was undertaken. Placed prophylactically (before trephination) or after trephination, the mattress suture is placed limbus-to-limbus across the anterior chamber. A second mattress suture can be placed in the opposite meridian (perpendicularly) for added support (safety basket configuration). Variations of suture technique are described based on lens status (i.e., phakic, pseudophakic, aphakic) and intraoperative timing. Parameters assessed included demographics, lens status, suture indications, intraoperative technique details, successful PKP completion, and presence of primary failure. Results There were 6 phakic eyes (5 patients) and 9 pseudophakic/aphakic eyes (8 patients). Indications for the phakic subgroup were obesity (83%), poor scleral rigidity (83%), repeated iris prolapse (67%), dense mature cataract (33%), and planned large-diameter PKP (33%). Indications for pseudophakic/aphakic eyes included intraocular lens/iris prolapse (100%), pre-existing iris defects (67%), and planned large-diameter PKP (33%). Successful PKP was performed in all cases. Whereas one case had residual corneal edema in the setting of a persistent epithelial defect owing to limbal stem cell deficiency, all other cases demonstrated no primary graft failure. Conclusions Although increased PVP can present a stressful and challenging situation, it is important to have multiple options for management. This simple mattress suture technique normalizes the lens-iris complex behaviour and appears safe for the donor graft.

Objective To investigate efficacy and safety of phaco-trabectome (PT) versus phaco-iStent (Pi) for intraocular pressure (IOP) control in open-angle glaucoma (OAG). Design Retrospective comparative case series. Participants A total of 70 eyes of 55 patients with OAG underwent either PT surgery by a single surgeon or Pi (insertion of 2 stents) by another surgeon in Canada between January 2010 and December 2012. Methods The medical records of consecutive adult patients who underwent either PT or Pi surgery were reviewed. All patients who satisfied both the inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in the outcomes analyses. IOP reduction, reduction in glaucoma medication, safety profile, and best-corrected visual acuity were evaluated. Results Thirty-six eyes of 30 patients had PT and 34 eyes of 25 patients had Pi. Baseline IOP was higher in the PT group (20.92 ± 5.07 mm Hg) than in the Pi group (17.47 ± 4.87 mm Hg; p = 0.026). At 12 months there was no significant difference between groups in relative reduction of mean IOP (PT −5.09 ± 5.73, 24% relative reduction vs. Pi −3.84 ± 3.80, 22% relative reduction; p = 0.331) or glaucoma medication use (PT −0.49 ± 1.17 vs. Pi −0.26 ± 0.73; p = 0.168) from baseline. However, Pi had significantly fewer individual complications (PT 20 vs. Pi 5; p Conclusion At 12 months of follow-up, both techniques significantly lowered IOP, but fewer complications were observed in the Pi group.