No abstract

To analyze the outcomes of revision surgery for idiopathic full-thickness macular holes that have failed to close after primary surgery, and also to assess factors predicting success and to review the relative effect of adjunctive surgical techniques.Methods: A multicenter retrospective study. Anatomical closure rates and visual acuity change between pre and postrevision surgery were assessed. Hole size, age, symptom duration, surgical interval, and reduced hole size were analyzed as predictive factors for success. Effectiveness of adjunctive surgical techniques was reviewed.Results: Seventy-seven eyes were included in the study. Anatomical closure was achieved in 71% (55/77) cases. There was a median gain of 11 Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Score letters in all holes and 14 letters in closed holes. Full-thickness macular holes that increased in size by more than 10% following primary surgery had a closure rate of 50% compared with 80% in holes that reduced by 10% or stayed the same (P = 0.015). Increasing hole size is associated with a modest reduction in odds of closure (odds ratio = 0.99; P = 0.04). Surgical interval ,2 months is not associated with better outcomes compared with .2 months (P = 0.14).Conclusion: Revision surgery for full-thickness macular holes that have failed to close after primary surgery is associated with high closure rates and significant visual gains.

No abstract

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.