Informed consent in refractive surgery: in-person vs telemedicine approach.

Purpose:The aim of this study was to compare the quality of consent process in refractive surgery between patients who had a preoperative consent discussion with the surgeon using a telemedicine approach and those who had a face-to-face discussion. Methods:Patients treated between January and December 2017 (8,184 laser vision correction [LVC] and 3,754 refractive lens exchange [RLE] patients) that attended day 1 and 1-month postoperative visit were retrospectively reviewed. Preoperative consent preparation included a consultation with an optometrist, observation of an educational video, and written information. Patients then selected either a face-to-face appointment with their surgeon (in-clinic group) or a telemedicine appointment (remote group) for their consent discussion, according to their preference. Patient experience questionnaire and clinical data were included in a multivariate model to explore factors associated with consent quality. Results:Prior to surgery, 80.1% of LVC and 47.9% of RLE patients selected remote consent. Of all LVC patients, 97.5% of in-clinic and 98.3% of remote patients responded that they were adequately consented for surgery (P=0.04). Similar percentages in the RLE group were 97.6% for in-clinic and 97.9% for remote patients (P=0.47). In a multivariate model, the major predictor of patient's satisfaction with the consent process was postoperative satisfaction with visual acuity, responsible for 80.4% of variance explained by the model. Other significant contributors were postoperative visual phenomena and dry eyes, difficulty with night driving, close-up and distance vision, postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity, change in corrected distance visual acuity, and satisfaction with the surgeon's approach. The type of consent (remote or in-clinic) had no impact on patient's perception of consent quality in the regression model. Conclusion:The majority of patients opted for telemedicine-assisted consent. Those who chose it were equally satisfied as those who had a face-to-face meeting with their surgeon. Dissatisfaction with surgical outcome was the major factor affecting patient's perception of consent quality, regardless of the method of their consent

Informed consent in refractive surgery: in-person vs telemedicine approach

Steven C Schallhorn,1–3 Stephen J Hannan,2 David Teenan,2 Martina Pelouskova,2 Julie M Schallhorn1,4 1Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA; 2Optical Express, Glasgow, UK; 3Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA, USA; 4F.I. Proctor Foundation, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the quality of consent process in refractive surgery between patients who had a preoperative consent discussion with the surgeon using a telemedicine approach and those who had a face-to-face discussion.Methods: Patients treated between January and December 2017 (8,184 laser vision correction [LVC] and 3,754 refractive lens exchange [RLE] patients) that attended day 1 and 1-month postoperative visit were retrospectively reviewed. Preoperative consent preparation included a consultation with an optometrist, observation of an educational video, and written information. Patients then selected either a face-to-face appointment with their surgeon (in-clinic group) or a telemedicine appointment (remote group) for their consent discussion, according to their preference. Patient experience questionnaire and clinical data were included in a multivariate model to explore factors associated with consent quality.Results: Prior to surgery, 80.1% of LVC and 47.9% of RLE patients selected remote consent. Of all LVC patients, 97.5% of in-clinic and 98.3% of remote patients responded that they were adequately consented for surgery (P=0.04). Similar percentages in the RLE group were 97.6% for in-clinic and 97.9% for remote patients (P=0.47). In a multivariate model, the major predictor of patient’s satisfaction with the consent process was postoperative satisfaction with visual acuity, responsible for 80.4% of variance explained by the model. Other significant contributors were postoperative visual phenomena and dry eyes, difficulty with night driving, close-up and distance vision, postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity, change in corrected distance visual acuity, and satisfaction with the surgeon’s approach. The type of consent (remote or in-clinic) had no impact on patient’s perception of consent quality in the regression model.Conclusion: The majority of patients opted for telemedicine-assisted consent. Those who chose it were equally satisfied as those who had a face-to-face meeting with their surgeon. Dissatisfaction with surgical outcome was the major factor affecting patient’s perception of consent quality, regardless of the method of their consent. Keywords: informed consent, telemedicine, refractive surgery, LASIK, photorefractive keratectomy, refractive lens exchange&nbsp

Outcomes of excimer laser enhancements in pseudophakic patients with multifocal intraocular lens

Steven C Schallhorn,1–3 Jan A Venter,2 David Teenan,2 Julie M Schallhorn,3 Keith A Hettinger,2 Stephen J Hannan,2 Martina Pelouskova2 1Department of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA; 2Optical Express, Glasgow, UK; 3Department of Ophthalmology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess visual and refractive outcomes of laser vision correction (LVC) to correct residual refraction after multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. Patients and methods: In this retrospective study, 782 eyes that underwent LVC to correct unintended ametropia after multifocal IOL implantation were evaluated. Of all multifocal lenses implanted during primary procedure, 98.7% were refractive and 1.3% had a diffractive design. All eyes were treated with VISX STAR S4 IR excimer laser using a convectional ablation profile. Refractive outcomes, visual acuities, patient satisfaction, and quality of life were evaluated at the last available visit. Results: The mean time between enhancement and last visit was 6.3±4.4 months. Manifest spherical equivalent changed from -0.02±0.83 D (-3.38 D to +2.25 D) pre-enhancement to 0.00±0.34 D (-1.38 D to +1.25 D) post-enhancement. At the last follow-up, the percentage of eyes within 0.50 D and 1.00 D of emmetropia was 90.4% and 99.5%, respectively. Of all eyes, 74.9% achieved monocular uncorrected distance visual acuity 20/20 or better. The mean corrected distance visual acuity remained the same before (-0.04±0.06 logMAR [logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution]) and after LVC procedure (-0.04±0.07 logMAR; P=0.70). There was a slight improvement in visual phenomena (starburst, halo, glare, ghosting/double vision) following the enhancement. No sight-threatening complications related to LVC occurred in this study. Conclusion: LVC in pseudophakic patients with multifocal IOL was safe, effective, and predictable in a large cohort of patients. Keywords: excimer laser enhancements, pseudophakic patients, multifocal IO

Effect of Gender and Procedure on Patient-Reported Dry Eye Symptoms After Laser Vision Correction

PurposeTo evaluate factors associated with the change in dry eye symptoms following laser vision correction.MethodsThis was a retrospective case series of 13,319 patients who underwent laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) or photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) between January 2013 and February 2016 and completed a preoperative and 3-month postoperative patient-reported outcome questionnaire.ResultsIn a multivariate linear regression model, women and contact lens wearers were associated with worse preoperative dry eye symptoms. Age was not significantly associated with preoperative dry eye symptoms. The change in dry eye symptoms preoperatively to postoperatively was affected by gender, procedure type, and preoperative dry eye symptoms. Patients who underwent PRK were more likely to report an increase in dry eye after 3 months (coefficient: 3.99, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.64 to 4.82, P < .001) and patients with worse preoperative dry eye were more likely to have improvement in symptoms after surgery (coefficient: -0.93, 95% CI: -0.97 to -0.90, P < .001). More women reported an increased level of symptoms 3 months after surgery than men (coefficient: 1.76, 95% CI: 0.68 to 2.84, P = .001).ConclusionsPreoperative dry eye symptoms, female gender, and procedure type had a significant effect on preoperative to postoperative change in dry eye symptoms after laser vision correction. Age was not associated with dry eye symptoms in this population. [J Refract Surg. 2019;35(3):161-168.]

Outcomes of excimer laser enhancements in pseudophakic patients with multifocal intraocular lens

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess visual and refractive outcomes of laser vision correction (LVC) to correct residual refraction after multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, 782 eyes that underwent LVC to correct unintended ametropia after multifocal IOL implantation were evaluated. Of all multifocal lenses implanted during primary procedure, 98.7% were refractive and 1.3% had a diffractive design. All eyes were treated with VISX STAR S4 IR excimer laser using a convectional ablation profile. Refractive outcomes, visual acuities, patient satisfaction, and quality of life were evaluated at the last available visit. RESULTS: The mean time between enhancement and last visit was 6.3±4.4 months. Manifest spherical equivalent changed from −0.02±0.83 D (−3.38 D to +2.25 D) pre-enhancement to 0.00±0.34 D (−1.38 D to +1.25 D) post-enhancement. At the last follow-up, the percentage of eyes within 0.50 D and 1.00 D of emmetropia was 90.4% and 99.5%, respectively. Of all eyes, 74.9% achieved monocular uncorrected distance visual acuity 20/20 or better. The mean corrected distance visual acuity remained the same before (−0.04±0.06 logMAR [logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution]) and after LVC procedure (−0.04±0.07 logMAR; P=0.70). There was a slight improvement in visual phenomena (starburst, halo, glare, ghosting/double vision) following the enhancement. No sight-threatening complications related to LVC occurred in this study. CONCLUSION: LVC in pseudophakic patients with multifocal IOL was safe, effective, and predictable in a large cohort of patients

Refractive lens exchange in younger and older presbyopes: comparison of complication rates, 3 months clinical and patient-reported outcomes

PurposeTo compare refractive and visual outcomes, patient satisfaction, and complication rates among different age categories of patients who underwent refractive lens exchange (RLE).MethodsA stratified, simple random sample of patients matched on preoperative sphere and cylinder was selected for four age categories: 45-49 years (group A), 50-54 years (group B), 55-59 years (group C), and 60-65 years (group D). Each group contained 320 patients. All patients underwent RLE with a multifocal intraocular lens at least in one eye. Three months postoperative refractive/visual and patient-reported outcomes are presented.ResultsThe percentage of patients that achieved binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity 20/20 or better was 91.6% (group A), 93.8% (group B), 91.6% (group C), 88.8% (group D), P=0.16. Binocularly, 80.0% of patients in group A, 84.7% in group B, 78.9% in group C, and 77.8% in group D achieved 20/30 or better uncorrected near visual acuity (P=0.13). The proportion of eyes within 0.50 D of emmetropia was 84.4% in group A, 86.8% in group B, 85.7% in group C, and 85.8% in group D (P=0.67). There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative satisfaction, visual phenomena, dry eye symptoms, distance or near vision activities. Apart from higher rate of iritis in the age group 50-55 years, there was no statistically significant difference in postoperative complication rates.ConclusionRLE can be safely performed in younger as well as older presbyopes. No significant difference was found in clinical or patient-reported outcomes