Autosomal Recessive Spastic Ataxia of Charlevoix-Saguenay (ARSACS): Weakness With a Lot of Nerves!

Thrombolytic therapy faces unique challenges in COVID-19 patients

The Effect of a Diving Mask on Intraocular Pressure in a Healthy Population

Purpose: Swimming goggles increase the intraocular pressure (IOP) via the periorbital frame pressure and suction effect. In comparison, diving masks have a larger frame rim and incorporate the nose. The exact effect(s) of diving masks on IOP is unknown. This study evaluates the influence of diving masks on IOP in normal, healthy subjects. Methods: Tonometry was performed in both eyes of all subjects with an AVIA®Tono-Pen by a single investigator. Measurements were taken at baseline without the diving mask and with the subjects wearing a small-volume, double-window diving mask, but with the mask lenses removed. Two IOP readings in each eye were measured, and an additional reading was measured if the difference between the initial 2 was ≥2 mm Hg. Central corneal thickness (CCT) was also measured in each eye, using a contact pachymeter (OcuScan®Alcon). Results: Forty eyes of 20 healthy volunteers (age 29.7 ± 9.3 years; range 21–52) were included. The mean CCT was 544.4 ± 43.5 µm. The mean IOP before the diving mask was worn had been 17.23 ± 2.18 mm Hg (n = 40). The IOP decreased by 0.43 mm Hg (p < 0.05) to 16.80 ± 2.57 mm Hg after the diving mask had been put on. There was no correlation between IOP change and age (r = 0.143, p = 0.337), gender (r = –0.174, p = 0.283) or CCT (r = –0.123, p = 0.445). Conclusion: There was no increase in IOP after the diving mask had been worn. A small but statistically significant decrease in IOP was observed. This study demonstrates that unlike swimming goggles, the strap tension and frame pressure on the periorbital tissue from a diving mask does not increase IOP. Diving masks may be a suitable alternative to swimming goggles for patients with advanced glaucoma or glaucoma filtration surgery

Comparison of efficacy of combined phacoemulsification and iStent inject versus combined phacoemulsification and hydrus microstent

Aim: This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of combined phacoemulsification with iStent inject (Phaco-iStent) and Hydrus microstent (Phaco-Hydrus). Methods: This was a retrospective comparative study of patients who underwent Phaco-iStent from April 2019 to August 2020 and Phaco-Hydrus from August 2019 to December 2020 at a tertiary eye centre in Singapore. Sixty-nine Phaco-iStent eyes and 49 Phaco-Hydrus eyes were included in this study. Complete surgical success was defined as freedom from second glaucoma surgery, Intraocular pressure (IOP) of 18 mmHg or less, and discontinuation of all antiglaucoma medications. Results: At 12 months, both Phaco-iStent and Phaco-Hydrus groups had comparable surgical success rate (68.1% vs 51%, p=0.061), reduction in antiglaucoma medication use (− 1.3 ± 0.1 vs − 1.4 ± 0.10, p=0.880) and intraocular pressure reduction (− 1.1 ± 0.5 mmHg vs – 1.6 ± 0.9 mmHg, p=0.323). Overall intraoperative and postoperative complications rate were similar in both groups, though hyphema was more commonly seen in early postoperative period in the Phaco-Hydrus compared to the Phaco-iStent group (8% vs 0%, p=0.028), with majority of cases resolving without any need for surgical intervention. Device obstruction was also more common in the Phaco-Hydrus group compared to the Phaco-iStent group (14% vs 4.3%, p=0.04). Conclusion: Phaco-iStent and Phaco-Hydrus have similar surgical efficacy and safety profiles at 12 months.Published versio