RESUMEN
Purpose: To analyze the impact on eye donation and corneal transplantation during the COVID?19 pandemic in a tertiary eye hospital in south India. Methods: A retrospective analysis of the donor and recipient records during the study period from January 2020 to May 2021 was conducted and tabulated in Microsoft Excel 2013. Demographic details of the donor, utility rate, cause of death, culture characteristics, storage methods, wet lab usage, and the surgical donor outcomes were evaluated. Additionally, the postoperative workup of the recipients, diagnosis, graft infection and rejection episodes, development of COVID?19 postoperatively, and outcome in terms of visual acuity at one, three, and six months were also noted. Results: A total of 466 eyes from 249 donors were received during the study period. The mean age of the donor population was 62.43 years (20.9). The corneal transplantation utility rate was 36.4% (n = 170). Fifty?one percent of the total transplant surgeries were for therapeutic purposes. This was followed by penetrating optical keratoplasty (34%), Descemet’s stripping endothelial keratoplasty (9%), and patch grafts (3%). Seventeen (10%) graft rejection episodes were noted and nine (53%) had complete resolution after medical treatment. Conclusion: Proper preventive measures are key to carrying out safe and efficient eye banking activities even during a deadly pandemic, as COVID?19 transmission via transplantation is rare.
RESUMEN
Purpose: To identify socio?economic, demographic, and clinical factors that may be associated with sibling access to ophthalmic check?up. Methods: A cross?sectional, descriptive study investigated children in the age group of 0–15 years under a project on Systematic Pediatric Eye Care Through Sibling Screening Strategies (SPECSSS project). The siblings of pediatric patients (proband) with refractive errors, strabismus, cataract, glaucoma, and retinal pathologies were given a referral card for ophthalmic check?up. If parents do not bring siblings for check?up within 1 month of initial information and even after 2 SMS reminders, it was considered as failure to uptake of services. On follow?up later, they were provided a questionnaire. A questionnaire was given to the parent by interview through a project coordinator, and details were obtained from the parents or caretaker. Parents who were willing for telephonic interview were asked to respond to the questionnaire over phone on the scheduled date. The sibling details, parent?related details, and data from questionnaire forms were entered and analyzed. Results: The mean age of 300 siblings was 9.3 ± 4.0 years with the majority of them being female (158). The most common reasons quoted by parents in the rural area compared with the urban area for not bringing siblings for eye exams were the travel distance from home to the hospital (n = 118, 83.7%), the travel time from home to the hospital (n = 109, 77.3%), more than one vehicle required to change (n = 111, 78.7%), and the transportation cost more than rupees 100 (INR) (n = 89, 63.1%) (p < 0.05). Unable to leave work responsibilities (n = 126, 79.3%) was stated more frequently by urban parents compared to rural (p = 0.039). Conclusion: Our study suggests that the financial factor, the distance factor, and social belief play an important role in timely uptake of sibling eye check?up. Targeting siblings with treatable pediatric eye diseases could help in reducing the burden of refractive error, strabismus, and cataract in the pediatric population.