Aim: To investigate the safety and efficacy of alcohol delamination of the corneal epithelium for recalcitrant recurrent corneal erosion syndrome (RCE) in a prospective non-comparative interventional case series. Methods: Patients with RCE who remained symptomatic despite topical lubrication and 3-month use of an extended wear (bandage) contact lens were included. The intensity of pain on a scale of 1 to 10, and duration and frequency of attacks were recorded. Patients were treated with alcohol delamination and followed up at 1 week, 1 month and then at 12 months, which was the minimum follow up time. Success was defined as a resolution of symptoms after 1 month of treatment, and partial success as a significant reduction in symptoms manageable with topical lubricants, and failure where symptoms were unchanged or worsened. Results: 20 eyes of 20 patients with RCE caused by trauma (n = 14), anterior basement membrane dystrophy (n = 5) or idiopathic (1) were studied. The mean age of patients was 44 years and mean follow-up 24 months. Two eyes were lost to follow-up. 15 (83%) eyes were qualified as successes, 3 as partial successes and no failures were seen. No intraoperative complications were observed. 1 patient developed transient subepithelial haze that resolved with topical steroid, 1 had a change in refraction and 1 developed herpetic stromal keratitis 2 months postoperatively, which was successfully treated. No loss of vision was observed in any of the patients. Conclusion: Alcohol delamination of the corneal epithelium is a safe and effective method for treating patients with recalcitrant RCE.
Topical anesthesia with proparacaine provided similar and reasonable analgesic effects in patients having surgery by a surgeon in the learning curve and those having surgery by an experienced surgeon. The discomfort perceived during surgery performed by an experienced surgeon was less, although not statistically significantly different.
Purpose The practice of deferring phacoemulsification procedure on recording raised blood pressure (BP) in the immediate perioperative period is based on the perception of increased intraoperative risk. The significance of perioperative BP recordings on the surgical complications during phacoemulsification procedure was evaluated. Setting: Hairmyres Hospitals, Lanarkshire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust. Patients and methods Patients were classified as hypertensive on the basis of the British Hypertension Society Guidelines. BP recordings during preoperative assessment, admission, and 1-hour postoperatively were recorded in 734 hypertensives and 740 normotensives undergoing phacoemulsification procedure. In addition, BP recordings in the holding area before giving local anaesthesia were noted in the 734 hypertensives. Patient's peri-and intraoperative complications during the procedure were noted. Results The mean age was 72 ± 10.5 years and 74±11.6 years among the hypertensives and normotensives. There was a significant increase in the number of hypertensives who developed isolated systolic hypertension in the holding area (95% confidence interval ¼ 2.82, Po0.001) where the mean BP was 171.38/78.31 mm Hg ( ± 30.55/16.29). A total of 21 hypertensives and 18 normotensives developed intraoperative complications during the phacoemulsification procedure. There was no significant difference (P ¼ 0.41) in the intraoperative complications between the hypertensives and normotensives. Conclusion Perioperative increase in BP noted in the holding area among hypertensives did not increase the risk of surgical complications during phacoemulsification procedure when compared with normotensives. We recommend that BP should not be routinely measured in the holding area before phacoemulsification surgery under local anaesthesia.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.