Results indicate that on-axis OCCIs are a reliable and practical way of reducing preexisting corneal astigmatism. The change in SE was negligible and thus can be ignored during biometry.

No abstract

Purpose: Our oculoplastic service piloted a new video consultation (VC) clinic in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were collected to determine whether specific patients are better suited to VC, and to quantify the true benefit of VC in patients that successfully attended. Methods: Data were collected prospectively on predetermined data collection forms, including consultation duration, diagnosis, management plan, and issues that arose. Results: 37.8% of new referrals and 60.9% of return patients were vetted as suitable for VC. Of those invited to attend, 83.4% agreed to a VC appointment. Of the patients appointed to a VC clinic, 71.7% (new)/75% (return) successfully completed VC, 14.9%/15.8% attempted a VC which ultimately failed, and 13.4%/9.2% did not attend. VC successfully prevented face-to-face consultation in 81.3% of new cases and 91.1% of returns. Ectropion, entropion and dermatochalasis (new referrals), and postoperative follow-up (return patients) were well suited to VC, while patients with “watery eye” (new), and lid or conjunctival lesions (return), often required face-to-face consultation. Problems (most common issues with patients connecting to the consultation, video quality, and audio quality) were encountered during 50.3% of calls, although 82.6% of attempted calls were ultimately successful. Age was not associated with the proportion of calls that were successful. Conclusions: VC is a useful tool for oculoplastic patients, irrespective of age, as long as the patient’s notes/referrals are carefully vetted to determine suitability. Patients with ectropion, entropion and dermatochalasis, and postoperative reviews are better suited to VC than those with “watery eye,” lid lesions, and conjunctival lesions.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Oculoplastics is a predominantly visual specialty and many of the pathologies can be diagnosed based on external appearance. An image-based eyelid lesion management service was piloted to reduce the number of patients who would require outpatient clinic review. The aim of this study was to determine its accuracy and feasibility, both as a hospital-based and community optometrist-based service. If successful, the service was envisaged to significantly reduce the number of patients that require face-to-face (F2F) review, in accordance with current post-COVID-19 principles of social distancing. METHODS: Patients with lid lesions attending an oculoplastics clinic were assessed by consultant oculoplastic surgeons in an F2F consultation (Arm A). The lesions were photographed by a professional clinical photographer (Arm B) and by an optometrist with a handheld digital camera (Arm C). These images were reviewed by independent consultants masked to the outcome of the F2F clinical encounter. Data were collected prospectively including patient demographics, diagnosis, suspicion of malignancy and management. The image-based clinic results were compared to the F2F clinic results. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were included. Clinical diagnoses were compared for intra-observer variability and substantial agreement was demonstrated between gold-standard F2F clinic visit (Arm A) and Arm B (Ƙ = 0.708) and C (Ƙ = 0.776). There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of discharge and all cases of malignancy were either identified or flagged for F2F review in the image-based arms. CONCLUSION: This pilot demonstrated substantial diagnostic agreement of image-based diagnoses with F2F consultation and image review alone did not miss any cases of malignancy.

The case highlights the importance of early recognition of the symptoms and signs of endogenous endophthalmitis in any patient with systemic infection by all clinicians and the necessity of prompt ophthalmological referral if a useful level of vision is to be preserved.