Investigating target refraction advice provided to cataract surgery patients by UK optometrists and ophthalmologists.

PURPOSE: To determine whether UK optometrists and ophthalmologists provide target refraction advice to patients prior to cataract surgery, and when this should first be discussed. METHODS: Optometrists and ophthalmologists were asked to complete a survey of two clinical vignettes (both older patients with cataract; a pre-operative myope who routinely read without glasses and a patient using a monovision approach), plus multiple choice and short answer questions either using hard copy or online. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 437 optometrists and 50 ophthalmologists. Optometrists who reported they would provide target refraction advice were more experienced (median 22 years) than those who would leave this to the Hospital Eye Service (median 10 years). The former group reported it was in the patients' best interest to make an informed decision as they had seen many myopic patients who read uncorrected pre-operatively, and were unhappy that they could no longer do so after surgery. Inexperienced optometrists reported that they did not want to overstep their authority and left the decision to the ophthalmologist. The ophthalmologists estimated their percentage of emmetropic target refractions over the last year to have been 90%. CONCLUSION: Currently, some long-term myopes become dissatisfied after cataract surgery due to an emmetropic target refraction that leaves them unable to read without glasses as they did prior to surgery. Although experienced optometrists are aware of this and attempt to discuss this issue with patients, less experienced optometrists tend not to. This suggests that target refraction needs greater exposure in university training and continuing professional development. To provide patients with the knowledge to make informed decisions regarding their surgery, we suggest an agreed protocol within funded direct referral schemes of initial target refraction discussions by optometrists to introduce the idea of refractive outcomes and outline options, with further discussion with the ophthalmologist to clarify understanding.

When is refraction stable following routine cataract surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: We systematically reviewed the literature to investigate when refraction is stable following routine cataract surgery implanting monofocal intraocular lenses. Current advice recommends obtaining new spectacles 4-6 weeks following surgery. Due to advancements in surgical techniques, we hypothesised that refractive stability would be achieved earlier, which could have major short-term improvements in quality of life for patients. METHODS: Medline, CINAHL, AMED, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched with key words chosen to find articles, which assessed refraction following uncomplicated cataract surgery. Citation chains and the reference lists of all included papers were searched. Unpublished literature was identified using OpenGrey (www.opengrey.eu). The review considered studies that measured refraction at regular intervals following surgery until stability was achieved. RESULTS: The search identified 6,680 papers. Two reviewers independently screened the abstracts and nine papers were found to fit the criteria, of which five were included in the meta-analysis. The quality of the papers was evaluated using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomised Studies (MINORS) instrument. Meta-analysis of 301 patients' data of spherical, cylindrical and spherical equivalent correction were performed using Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5.3) (https://revman.cochrane.org/). Refraction at 1-week versus the gold standard of 4-weeks showed no significant difference for sphere data (effect size and 95% confidence interval of; ES = 0.00, 95% CI: -0.17, 0.17; p = 1.00), cylindrical data (ES = +0.06; 95% CI: -0.05, 0.17; p = 0.31), and spherical equivalent (ES = -0.01; 95% CI: -0.12, 0.10; p = 0.90). Heterogeneity was non-significant (I2  < 25%) for all refractive elements. Data were similar for 2- versus 4-weeks post-surgery. Acquired data from one study highlighted a small number of patients with very unstable cylindrical corrections at 1-week post-operatively. CONCLUSIONS: No statistical difference was found when comparing sphere, cylindrical and spherical equivalent values at 1- and 4-weeks post cataract surgery. This suggests that new glasses could be provided 1-week after surgery. However, from a clinical perspective, a small number of patients (~7%) from an acquired dataset (N = 72) showed very unstable cylindrical corrections at 1-week. Further work is needed to determine why this is the case and how these patients can be detected.

Development and Validation of the Vision-Related Dizziness Questionnaire.

PURPOSE: To develop and validate the first patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) to quantify vision-related dizziness. Dizziness is a common, multifactorial syndrome that causes reductions in quality of life and is a major risk factor for falls, but the role of vision is not well understood. METHODS: Potential domains and items were identified by literature review and discussions with experts and patients to form a pilot PROM, which was completed by 335 patients with dizziness. Rasch analysis was used to determine the items with good psychometric properties to include in a final PROM, to check undimensionality, differential item functioning, and to convert ordinal questionnaire data into continuous interval data. Validation of the final 25-item instrument was determined by its convergent validity, patient, and item-separation reliability and unidimensionality using data from 223 patients plus test-retest repeatability from 79 patients. RESULTS: 120 items were originally identified, then subsequently reduced to 46 to form a pilot PROM. Rasch analysis was used to reduce the number of items to 25 to produce the vision-related dizziness or VRD-25. Two subscales of VRD-12-frequency and VRD-13-severity were shown to be unidimensional, with good psychometric properties. Convergent validity was shown by moderately good correlations with the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (r = 0.75) and good test-retest repeatability with intra-class correlation coefficients of 0.88. CONCLUSION: VRD-25 is the only PROM developed to date to assess vision-related dizziness. It has been developed using Rasch analysis and provides a PROM for this under-researched area and for clinical trials of interventions to reduce vision-related dizziness.

A Comparison of Spectacles Purchased Online and in UK Optometry Practice.

PURPOSE: To compare spectacles bought online with spectacles from optometry practices. METHODS: Thirty-three participants consisting of single vision spectacle wearers with either a low (N = 12, mean age 34 ± 14 years) or high prescription (N = 11, mean age 28 ± 9 years) and 10 presbyopic participants (mean age 59 ± 4 years) wearing progressive addition lenses (PALs) purchased 154 pairs of spectacles online and 154 from UK optometry practices. The spectacles were compared via participant-reported preference, acceptability, and safety; the assessment of lens, frame, and fit quality; and the accuracy of the lens prescriptions to international standard ISO 21987:2009. RESULTS: Participants preferred the practice spectacles (median ranking 4th, IQR 1-6) more than online (6th, IQR 4-8; Mann-Whitney U = 7345, p < 0.001) and practice PALs (median ranking 2nd, IQR 1-4) were particularly preferred (online 6.5th, IQR 4-9, Mann-Whitney U = 455, p < 0.001). Of those deemed unacceptable and unsafe, significantly more were bought online (unacceptable: online 43/154 vs. practice 15/154, Fisher's exact p = 0.0001; unsafe: online 14/154 vs. practice 5/154, Fisher's exact p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Participants preferred spectacles from optometry practice rather than those bought online, despite lens quality and prescription accuracy being similar. A greater number of online spectacles were deemed unsafe or unacceptable because of poor spectacle frame fit, poor cosmetic appearance, and inaccurate optical centration. This seems particularly pertinent to PAL lenses, which are known to increase falls risk. Recommendations are made to improve both forms of spectacle provision.

Is there a link between dizziness and vision? A systematic review.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature to investigate the link (if any) between vision and dizziness. METHODS: Medline, CINAHL, AMED, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library were searched with keywords chosen to find articles which investigated the causes of dizziness and considered vision as a possible trigger. Citation chaining of all included papers was performed in addition to the hand searching of all reference lists. Unpublished literature was identified using www.opengrey.eu. The review considered studies involving adults which link, measure or attempt to improve any aspect of vision in relation to dizziness. RESULTS: Nine thousand six hundred and eighty one possible references were found, and the abstracts were screened independently by two reviewers to determine if they should be included in the study. Thirteen papers were found which investigated whether dizziness was linked to an assessment of vision. Visual impairment measures were crude and typically self-report, or Snellen visual acuity with little or no measurement details. Five studies found an independent link between dizziness and vision, five found a weak association (typically finding a link when univariate analyses were used, but not when multivariate analyses were used), and three found no association. Studies finding a strong link were usually cross-sectional with a large study population whereas those finding a weak association had relatively small numbers of participants. Studies which did not find an association used a broad definition of dizziness that included the term light-headedness, an unreliable Rosenbaum near visual acuity chart or an unusual categorisation of visual acuity. CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that dizziness (although likely not 'light-headedness') is linked with poor vision although further studies using more appropriate measures of vision are recommended.