Orbit and orbital apex

Pathology affecting the orbit and orbital apex is diverse and heterogeneous. Many of the differential pathologies require management in a multidisciplinary team involving both otolaryngology and ophthalmology. This article discusses the differential pathologies. Emphasis has been placed on Graves orbitopathy, traumatic optic neuropathy, and the indications for decompression in each. The differential diagnosis for a lesion within the orbit and orbital apex is diverse. The presentation, investigation, and appropriate management of these conditions is discussed with emphasis on traumatic optic neuropathy and Graves orbitopathy.20 page(s

Biogeography of the human ocular microbiota

The human eye is composed of numerous microhabitats. The aim of this study was to understand the communality and differences in the microbiomes of various regions of the eye

Intranasal corticosteroids do not affect intraocular pressure or lens opacity : a systematic review of controlled trials

Background: Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) are prescribed for the long-term prophylactic treatment of inflammatory upper airway conditions. Although some systemic absorption can occur via topical routes, the clinical relevance is controversial. The effects of orally administered corticosteroids on intraocular pressure (IOP) and lens opacity (LO) are well established, but the impact of the INCS is less well defined. This study aims to systematically review the literature for evidence of adverse occular events with INCS use. Methodology: A systematic review of literature from Medline and Embase databases (January 1974 to 21st of November 2013) was performed. Using the PRISMA guidelines, all controlled clinical trials of patients using INCS, that reported original measures of IOP, LO, glaucoma or cataract incidences were included. Studies with adjuvant administration of oral, inhaled and intravenous steroids were excluded. Results: 665 articles were retrieved with 137 were considered for full-text review. Of these, 116 (85%) were literature reviews and two were case reports. 19 studies (10 RCTs, 1 case-control, 8 case series) were included for the qualitative review, of which 18 reported data on IOP and 10 on cataract/LO. None (n=0) of the 10 RCT reporting data on glaucoma or IOP demonstrated changes in IOP compared to control. Also none (n=0) of the 6 RCTs reporting cataract or lens opacity demonstrated changes compared to control. Conclusion: Data from studies with low levels of bias, do not demonstrate a clinically relevant impact of INCS on neither ocular pressure, glaucoma, lens opacity nor cataract formation.13 page(s

Systematic review and meta-analysis on outcomes for endoscopic versus external dacryocystorhinostomy

Background: Dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) is commonly performed for epiphora, dacryocystitis and during tumor surgery. External (EXT-DCR) and endoscopic DCR (END-DCR) are both practiced. END-DCR was initially performed with laser (EL-DCR) but has shifted to careful bone removal with mechanical drills (EM-DCR). High level evidence from comparative cohorts was sought to compare outcomes. Method: Medline (1966 - January 28th, 2013) and Embase (1980 - January 28th, 2013) were searched for comparative studies (RCT/cohorts) of END-DCR to EXT-DCR for acquired nasolacrimal duct (NLD) obstruction. Primary outcome was DCR success, defined as resolution of symptoms and/or patent NLD on irrigation or dacroscintography. Secondary outcomes were scarring, infection and post-operative bleeding. Meta-analysis was performed with the Mantel-Haenszel Method and presented as Risk Ratios (RR) with Confidence Intervals (CI). Results: The search identified 3582 studies and 355 were reviewed after screening. Full text review yielded 19 studies (4 RCTs and 15 cohorts). Overall, EXT-DCR had slightly better success rates than END-DCR (RR 0.96, CI 0.93-1.00). However, EM-DCR outcomes were comparable to EXT-DCR (RR 1.02, CI 0.98-1.06), whereas EL-DCR had poorer outcomes (RR 0.85, CI 0.79-0.91) when compared separately. The RR for scarring, bleeding and infection with END-DCR versus EXT-DCR was 0.07 (CI 0.02-0.22), 0.72 (CI 0.46-1.13) and 0.24 (CI 0.11- 0.54), respectively. The rates of reported revision surgery were similar. Conclusion: DCR is a procedure with high success rates. Endoscopic procedures differ greatly by technique with EM-DCR offering comparable results to EXT-DCR, without the risk of cosmetically unacceptable scars.10 page(s