Scleral Buckling for Primary Retinal Detachment: Outcomes of Scleral Tunnels versus Scleral Sutures

Purpose: There are primarily two techniques for affixing the scleral buckle (SB) to the sclera in the repair of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD): scleral tunnels or scleral sutures. Methods: This retrospective study examined all patients with primary RRD who were treated with primary SB or SB combined with vitrectomy from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 across six sites. Two cohorts were examined: SB affixed using scleral sutures versus scleral tunnels. Pre- and postoperative variables were evaluated including visual acuity, anatomic success, and postoperative strabismus. Results: The mean preoperative logMAR VA for the belt loop cohort was 1.05 ± 1.06 (Snellen 20/224) and for the scleral suture cohort was 1.03 ± 1.04 (Snellen 20/214, p = 0.846). The respective mean postoperative logMAR VAs were 0.45 ± 0.55 (Snellen 20/56) and 0.46 ± 0.59 (Snellen 20/58, p = 0.574). The single surgery success rate for the tunnel cohort was 87.3% versus 88.6% for the suture cohort (p = 0.601). Three patients (1.0%) in the scleral tunnel cohort developed postoperative strabismus, but only one patient (0.1%) in the suture cohort (p = 0.04, multivariate p = 0.76). All cases of strabismus occurred in eyes that underwent SB combined with PPV (p = 0.02). There were no differences in vision, anatomic success, or strabismus between scleral tunnels versus scleral sutures in eyes that underwent primary SB. Conclusion: Scleral tunnels and scleral sutures had similar postoperative outcomes. Combined PPV/SB in eyes with scleral tunnels might be a risk for strabismus post retinal detachment surgery

Practice Patterns and Responsiveness to Simulated Common Ocular Complaints Among US Ophthalmology Centers During the COVID-19 Pandemic

This cross-sectional study reports practice patterns for common ocular complaints during the initial stage of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic among comprehensive ophthalmology practices in the US. Question How are comprehensive ophthalmology practices responding to common ocular complaints from patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic as of April 30, 2020? Findings In this cross-sectional study of 60 US ophthalmology practices, there were fairly uniform responses to 3 common ocular complaints across comprehensive ophthalmological practices. Private practices were more likely to schedule cataract evaluations and patients with posterior vitreous detachments sooner than university centers, while all practices were likely to ask about COVID-19 symptoms when scheduling urgent visits. Meaning These results suggest most practices were complying with the American Academy of Ophthalmology guidelines for scheduling patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Importance The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has drastically changed how comprehensive ophthalmology practices care for patients. Objective To report practice patterns for common ocular complaints during the initial stage of the COVID-19 pandemic among comprehensive ophthalmology practices in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants In this cross-sectional study, 40 private practices and 20 university centers were randomly selected from 4 regions across the US. Data were collected on April 29 and 30, 2020. Interventions Investigators placed telephone calls to each ophthalmology practice office. Responses to 3 clinical scenarios-refraction request, cataract evaluation, and symptoms of a posterior vitreous detachment-were compared regionally and between private and university centers. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary measure was time to next appointment for each of the 3 scenarios. Secondary measures included use of telemedicine and advertisement of COVID-19 precautions. Results Of the 40 private practices, 2 (5%) were closed, 24 (60%) were only seeing urgent patients, and 14 (35%) remained open to all patients. Of the 20 university centers, 2 (10%) were closed, 17 (85%) were only seeing urgent patients, and 1 (5%) remained open to all patients. There were no differences for any telemedicine metric. University centers were more likely than private practices to mention preparations to limit the spread of COVID-19 (17 of 20 [85%] vs 14 of 40 [35%]; mean difference, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.26-0.65; P < .001). Private practices had a faster next available appointment for cataract evaluations than university centers, with a mean (SD) time to visit of 22.1 (27.0) days vs 75.5 (46.1) days (mean difference, 53.4; 95% CI, 23.1-83.7; P < .001). Private practices were also more likely than university centers to be available to see patients with flashes and floaters (30 of 40 [75%] vs 8 of 20 [40%]; mean difference, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.22-0.79; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance In this cross-sectional study of investigator telephone calls to ophthalmology practice offices, there were uniform recommendations for the 3 routine ophthalmic complaints. Private practices had shorter times to next available appointment for cataract extraction and were more likely to evaluate posterior vitreous detachment symptoms. As there has not been a study examining these practice patterns before the COVID-19 pandemic, the relevance of these findings on public health is yet to be determined

Scleral Buckling for Primary Retinal Detachment: Outcomes of Scleral Tunnels Versus Scleral Sutures

Purpose: There are primarily two techniques for affixing the scleral buckle (SB) to the sclera in the repair of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD): scleral tunnels or scleral sutures. Methods: This retrospective study examined all patients with primary RRD who were treated with primary SB or SB combined with vitrectomy from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 across six sites. Two cohorts were examined: SB affixed using scleral sutures versus scleral tunnels. Pre- and postoperative variables were evaluated including visual acuity, anatomic success, and postoperative strabismus. Results: The mean preoperative logMAR VA for the belt loop cohort was 1.05 ± 1.06 (Snellen 20/224) and for the scleral suture cohort was 1.03 ± 1.04 (Snellen 20/214, p = 0.846). The respective mean postoperative logMAR VAs were 0.45 ± 0.55 (Snellen 20/56) and 0.46 ± 0.59 (Snellen 20/58, p = 0.574). The single surgery success rate for the tunnel cohort was 87.3% versus 88.6% for the suture cohort (p = 0.601). Three patients (1.0%) in the scleral tunnel cohort developed postoperative strabismus, but only one patient (0.1%) in the suture cohort (p = 0.04, multivariate p = 0.76). All cases of strabismus occurred in eyes that underwent SB combined with PPV (p = 0.02). There were no differences in vision, anatomic success, or strabismus between scleral tunnels versus scleral sutures in eyes that underwent primary SB. Conclusion: Scleral tunnels and scleral sutures had similar postoperative outcomes. Combined PPV/SB in eyes with scleral tunnels might be a risk for strabismus post retinal detachment surgery

Outcomes of Patients With Thyroid Eye Disease Partially Treated With Teprotumumab

In response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, teprotumumab production was temporarily halted with resources diverted toward vaccine production. Many patients who initiated treatment with teprotumumab for thyroid eye disease were forced to deviate from the standard protocol. This study investigates the response of teprotumumab when patients receive fewer than the standard 8-dose regimen. This observational cross-sectional cohort study included patients from 15 institutions with active or minimal to no clinical activity thyroid eye disease treated with the standard teprotumumab infusion protocol. Patients were included if they had completed at least 1 teprotumumab infusion and had not yet completed all 8 planned infusions. Data were collected before teprotumumab initiation, within 3 weeks of last dose before interruption, and at the visit before teprotumumab reinitiation. The primary outcome measure was reduction in proptosis more than 2 mm. Secondary outcome measures included change in clinical activity score (CAS), extraocular motility restriction, margin reflex distance-1 (MRD1), and reported adverse events. The study included 74 patients. Mean age was 57.8 years, and 77% were female. There were 62 active and 12 minimal to no clinical activity patients. Patients completed an average of 4.2 teprotumumab infusions before interruption. A significant mean reduction in proptosis (-2.9 mm in active and -2.8 mm in minimal to no clinical activity patients, P < 0.01) was noted and maintained during interruption. For active patients, a 3.4-point reduction in CAS ( P < 0.01) and reduction in ocular motility restriction ( P < 0.01) were maintained during interruption. Patients partially treated with teprotumumab achieve significant reduction in proptosis, CAS, and extraocular muscle restriction and maintain these improvements through the period of interruption