Search

COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 has impacted all aspects of clinical practice in the UK. Cataract services suffered severe disruption due to necessary measures taken to reduce elective surgery in order to release capacity to support intensive care requirements. Faced with a potential 50% increase in cataract surgery workload per week in the post-COVID-19 world, eye units should use this event to innovate, not just survive but to also evolve for a sustainable future. In this article, we discuss the inadequacies of existing service rationing options to tackle the COVID-19 cataract backlog. This includes limiting rationing based on visual acuity, limiting surgery to first or only seeing eyes, and postponing clinic and surgical dates according to referral dates. We propose units use the lockdown time to reset and develop a comprehensive patient-centred care pathway using principles of value-based healthcare: the cataract integrated practice units. Developing an agile surgical database that incorporates all aspects of patient need from education to follow-up in their individual cataract journey will allow units to react and plan quickly in the early phase of recovery and beyond. We also discuss the considerations units should bear in mind on telemedicine, modifications for face-to-face clinics, theatre organisation and options of expanding cataract throughput capacity. The pause in elective surgery due to the pandemic may have provided cataract services a rare opportunity to reset and transform cataract service pathways for the digital era.

PurposeThe purported benefits and risks of immediately sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS) have been well described, yet the procedure remains controversial among UK ophthalmologists. As many of the controversies of ISBCS are underpinned by ethical dilemmas, the aim of this work was to explore the ethical perspectives of ISBCS from a variety of stakeholder viewpoints.MethodA semi-structured independent stakeholder meeting was convened at the Royal College of Ophthalmologists London headquarters in June 2018. In total, 29 stakeholders attended the meeting. The professional characteristics of stakeholders included but were not limited to: ophthalmologists (9), patients (5), religious leaders (4), ethicists (2), lawyers (2) and commissioners (1). Thematic qualitative analysis using methodology proposed by Braun and Clarke was conducted on the resultant transcript of the discussion.ResultsThemes identified include: (1) beneficence and non-maleficence (patient benefits, patient risks, the uncertainties of risk, patient interpretation of the risk-benefit analysis); (2) autonomy (informed consent, the barriers to communication); (3) distributive justice (the allocation of resources: the individual vs the collective).ConclusionThis analysis provides a reference point for the ethical factors surrounding ISBCS. The stakeholders concluded that this approach was an ethical undertaking provided patient autonomy was appropriately attained. This requires a patient’s interpretation of the risk-benefit balance, which must include an understanding of the low but unquantifiable risk of severe complications. A surgeon must aim to minimise risks through the adaption of accepted surgical protocols and by performing appropriate patient selection. Currently, cost savings to healthcare that may occur following the implementation of ISBCS should be considered a secondary benefit of the protocol.

To evaluate the accuracy and applicability of Plusoptix photoscreener in screening pre-verbal children at risk of amblyopia.In this cross-sectional population-based study 996 children aged 6-36 months were screened with the Plusoptix. The children underwent complete examinations that included a manual cycloplegic retinoscopy, slit lamp examination, cover test, the Hirschberg test and an assessment of fixation pattern. In addition, the prevalence of amblyogenic risk factors was estimated, the Plusopix measurements were compared with cycloplegic retinoscopy, and the referral criteria were modified to improve the accuracy of the device.Amblyogenic hyperopia+3.50 D, myopia-3.00 D, astigmatism1.50 D in the orthogonal meridian or1.00 D in the oblique meridian, or anisometropia1.50 D was detected in 4.7%, 0.0%, 12.3% and 0.5% of the samples, respectively. The average difference between retinoscopy and photorefraction for spherical equivalence was -0.16 ± 1.0 D (p0.05). Testability was 98.1% for the Plusoptix. The Plusoptix vision screener referred 47.8% of these children for sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and false-negative rates of 100%, 38.7%, 19% and 100%, respectively. These same measurements with the modified referral criteria (hyperopia ≥ 2.00 D in children under 12 months and astigmatism ≥ 1.25 D) were 93.6%, 51.2%, 21.7% and 98.2%.The Plusoptix is a useful objective screening instrument, but still has low specificity for detecting amblyopia risk factors in the paediatric population.

Recently, endothelial keratoplasty has been shown to offer a promising alternative to penetrating keratoplasty for the management of corneal endothelial failure. Melles et al 1 introduced a new technique for transplantation of Descemet membrane (DM) through a self-sealing incision, which they referred to as Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). They obtained donor material by stripping DM with fine forceps. This is a challenging and time-consuming procedure with inevitable endothelial cell loss and possibility of DM tear. Herein, we describe a new technique to prepare donor tissue for DMEK, the reverse big-bubble technique. A corneoscleral button was placed endothelial side up on a donor Barron punch and fixed by grasping the outer scleral edge. The endothelial layer was stained with trypan blue. A 27-gauge bevel-up needle attached …