No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

Purpose:To compare the visual outcomes and complications between the eyes receiving retropupillary iris claw intraocular lens (IOL) and scleral-fixated IOL (SFIOL) for post-cataract aphakia.Methods:Medical records of consecutive patients who had iris claw IOL and SFIOL surgery from January 2010 to March 2015, with > 1 year of follow up were retrospectively analyzed. The surgical technique was based on individual surgeon preference. The best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA), previous surgery, surgical technique, and complications were analyzed.Results:Retropupillary iris claw IOL was fixated in 48 eyes (46%) and SFIOL was performed in 56 eyes. Iris claw was performed more frequently at the time of primary cataract surgery (56%) compared to SFIOL (14%) (P < 0.001). At 1 month postoperative, BCDVA was significantly better in the SFIOL group [0.7 ± 0.5 logarithm of minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) in iris claw vs. 0.3 ± 0.2 logMAR in SFIOL, P < 0.001] but this difference did not persist at 1 year (0.4 ± 0.4 logMAR in iris claw vs. 0.3 ± 0.2 logMAR in SFIOL, P = 0.56). Eyes with iris claw IOL experienced significantly more postoperative iritis (17%), intraocular pressure spikes (10%), and ovalization of the pupil (16%).Conclusion:Retropupillary iris claw IOL fixation is as safe as SFIOL for visual rehabilitation of post-cataract aphakia. Visual rehabilitation following iris claw IOL might take longer than SFIOL. Ovalization of the pupil is the commonest adverse effect reported with this type of IOL design.

No abstract

Purpose: To analyze predictors of image quality for a handheld nonmydriatic fundus camera used for screening of vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy. Methods: An ophthalmic photographer at an Aravind Eye Hospital obtained nonmydriatic and mydriatic fundus images from 3 fields in 275 eyes of 155 participants over 13 months using a Smartscope camera (Optomed, Oulu, Finland) and a Topcon tabletop fundus camera (Topcon, Tokyo, Japan). Two fellowship-trained retina specialists graded the images. Repeated-measures logistic regression assessed predictors of the main outcome measure: gradability of the fundus images. Results: Of 2,475 images, 76.2% of the Smartscope nonmydriatic images, 90.1% of the Smartscope mydriatic images, and 92.0% of the Topcon mydriatic images were gradable. Eyes with vitreous hemorrhage (OR = 0.24, p < 0.0001) or advanced cataract (OR = 0.08, p < 0.0001) had decreased odds of image gradability. Excluding eyes with cataract or vitreous hemorrhage, nonmydriatic macular image gradability improved from 68.4% in the first set of 55 eyes to 94.6% in the final set of 55 eyes. Conclusion: With sufficient training, paraprofessional health care staff can obtain high-quality images with a portable nonmydriatic fundus camera, particularly in patients with clear lenses and clear ocular media.

PurposeTo evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of a portable non-mydriatic fundus camera to diagnose vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy (VTDR).Patients and methodsA prospective, single-site, comparative instrument validation study was undertaken at the Aravind Eye Care System. Overall, 155 subjects with and without diabetes were recruited. Images from 275 eyes were obtained with the (1) non-mydriatic Smartscope, (2) mydriatic Smartscope, and (3) mydriatic table-top camera of the macular, nasal, and superotemporal fields. A retina specialist performed a dilated fundus examination (DFE), (reference standard). Two masked retina specialists graded the images. Sensitivity and specificity to detect VTDR with the undilated Smartscope was calculated compared to DFE.ResultsGraders 1 and 2 had a sensitivity of 93% (95% confidence interval (CI): 87-97%) and 88% (95% CI: 81-93%) and a specificity of 84% (95% CI: 77-89%) and 90% (95% CI: 84-94%), respectively, in diagnosing VTDR with the undilated Smartscope compared to DFE. Compared with the dilated Topcon images, graders 1 and 2 had sensitivity of 88% (95% CI: 81-93%) and 82% (95% CI: 73-88%) and specificity of 99% (95% CI: 96-100%) and 99% (95% CI: 95-100%).ConclusionsRemote graders had high sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing VTDR with undilated Smartscope images, suggesting utility where portability is a necessity.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to analyze the impact on vision due to delay in presentation of patients requiring intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections, consequent to COVID-19-related travel restrictions. Methods: Data were collected retrospectively of patients who received anti-VEGF injections during four months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Visual acuities, indication for treatment were noted along with basic demographic characteristics. Results: Data were analyzed for 303 eyes of 263 patients. The indication for treatment was age-related macular degeneration (AMD) in 60 eyes (19.8%), while 162 eyes (53.5%) had Diabetic Macular Edema, 71 eyes (23.4%) had Retinal Vein Occlusion and 10 eyes (3.3%) had other diagnosis. The visual acuity in the treatment naïve eyes (Group A, n = 168) was significantly worse ( P < 0.001) than those who presented for retreatment (Group B, n = 135). In Group B, there was a significant decline in vision for the entire cohort ( P = 0.009) and those with AMD ( P = 0.036). Those in Group B presented at a mean interval of 19.1 ± 10.6 (range, 4–64) weeks for retreatment. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a delay in patients receiving anti-VEGF injections. The visual acuity is worse in both treatment naïve as well as those requiring retreatment. This could have long-term impact on vision of patients requiring this vision preserving treatment.

Purpose:To identify social factors associated with delayed follow-up in South Indian patients with diabetic retinopathy (DR) and to study DR progression during the delayed follow-up period.Materials and Methods:In this cross-sectional study, 500 consecutive patients with DR returning after greater than twice the advised follow-up period were identified from a tertiary referral center in South India. A previously validated 19-item questionnaire was administered to study patients to assess causes for the follow-up delay. Patient demographics, DR status, and treatment plan were recorded at the study visit and the visit immediately before the delay. The eye with the most severe disease was included in the analysis.Results:Complete data were available for 491 (98.2%) patients. Among these, 248 (50.5%) cited “my eyes were okay at the time,” 201 (41.0%) cited “no attender to accompany me,” and 190 (38.6%) cited “financial cost” as causes of the follow-up delay. Those with vision-threatening DR (VTDR, n = 233) predominantly reported “financial cost” (47% vs. 32%, P = 0.001), whereas those with non-VTDR more frequently reported “my eyes were okay at the time” (58% vs. 42%, P = 0.001). Evidence of disease progression from non-VTDR to VTDR was seen in 67 (26%) patients. Almost 1/3rd (29%) of patients who were previously advised regular examination required additional intervention.Conclusion:Many patient-level factors affect poor compliance with follow-up in DR, and these factors vary by disease severity. Targeting these barriers to care through patient education and clinic procedures may promote timely follow-up and better outcomes in these patients.

No abstract