ABSTRACT
Purpose: The present work style and lifestyle have increased the digital device use. Therefore, an increase in digital eyestrain is to be expected. We undertook a survey during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID?19) pandemic to investigate the practice of 20/20/20 rule and its association with digital device use and asthenopic symptoms. While this rule is commonly advised, little is known about its validity. Methods: An online survey form was disseminated through social media and emails. The questions for eye?related symptoms were similar to the convergence insufficiency symptom survey (CISS). Participants with age ?5 years were included, with parents completing the survey for children (?16 years). Results: A total of 432 participants (mean ± standard deviation [SD]: 26.06 ± 13.92 years) were enrolled, of which 125 responses were for children. The 20/20/20 rule was practiced only by 34% of the participants either regularly (n = 38) or occasionally (n = 109). Those who had complaints of burning sensation and headache tended to practice this rule. Among adult participants, more females (47%) practiced this rule when compared to males (23%). Also, adult females significantly (P = 0.04) had more symptoms score when compared to males. In children, no such gender difference was found. Conclusion: Only one?third of participants practice the 20/20/20 rule at least occasionally. More number of adult females being symptomatic and practicing in greater number could be due to higher prevalence of dry eye condition in females. While the symptom of burning sensation could be related to dry eye, that of headache could be related to refractive error or binocular vision dysfunctions
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Routine use of frozen section (FS) is a costly procedure and sparsely available in resource poor countries. A proper cost benefit analysis may help to reduce its routine use and would empower surgeons to perform oral cancer surgeries without having FS facility. FS is performed to identify microscopic spread beyond gross disease that cannot be assessed clinically. OBJECTIVE: Our primary aim was to determine the cost benefit analysis of FS in the assessment of margins in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective study of prospectively collected data of 1311 consecutive patients who were operated between January 2012 and October 2013. The gross and microscopic margin status of each patient was extracted from the patient's chart. The cost estimates were performed to calculate the financial burden of FS as well as expenses incurred on adjuvant treatment resulting from inadequate margins. RESULT: Microscopic spread changed the gross margin status in 5.2% (65/1237) patients. Of this entire cohort of 1237 patients, FS helped 29 (2.3%) patients to achieve tumor free margin, and it changed the adjuvant treatment plan in 9 (0.7%) patients. The cost of FS for each patient was INR 11052. The cost-benefit ratio of FS was 12:1. Gross examination alone could have identified majority of the inadequate margins. CONCLUSION: Frozen section for assessment of margin status bears poor cost-benefit ratio. Meticulous gross examination of the entire surgical specimen is sufficient to identify majority of inadequate margins.