Transposed cheek flap in lower lid reconstruction: a retrospective case note review.

PURPOSE: To review the results of a cohort of patients that had a transposed cheek flap as part of the lower lid reconstruction. METHODS: Patients were identified from a database and a retrospective case note review was conducted. 21 patients were identified but one set of notes was not traceable. 21 lids of 20 patients were included. Data included age, sex, laterality, date and details of surgery and follow up as well as details of any complications and additional surgery where required. Data was collected and analysed using Microsoft Excel. RESULTS: 9 male and 11 female patients were included. Median age was 51. Follow up ranged from 5 to 176 months (median 34). The posterior lamella was reconstructed in 13 patients. Complications included bulky lids and ectropion as well as a few cases of corneal irritation from dermal hairs. 8 cases had no complications. 7 cases required revision--2 for trichiasis, 2 for bulky lids and 3 for ectropion. CONCLUSION: The transposed cheek flap is a useful technique in the reconstruction of lower lid lesions involving the lateral canthus. The majority of patients had a good cosmetic result and required no further intervention. The most frequent complications were bulky lids and ectropion.

Silicone sling allows adjustable ptosis correction in children and in adults at risk of corneal exposure.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Brow suspension is the procedure of choice for ptosis correction in patients with poor levator function. A subgroup of these patients, namely the ocular myopathies, is at risk of progressive muscle weakness and subsequent corneal exposure. We aim to demonstrate that silicone rods can be easily adjusted and therefore allows greater control of lid height in these patients. METHOD: A retrospective review of 42 consecutive silicone sling brow suspensions in 26 patients performed in Salisbury District Hospital between 1998 and 2007. The recurrence rate and ease of adjustment after silicone slings are compared with published results using monofilament prolene, polyfilament nylon, Mersilene mesh and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene. RESULTS: Children: 12 lids of 10 children had primary brow suspension using silicone slings. Median follow up was 42 months. One lid required adjustment 3.75 years after surgery. Adults: 30 lids of 16 patients had silicone sling brow suspensions. Median follow up was 22 months. Seven lids (19.4%) needed adjustment between 2 and 11 months after surgery (median 8 months). CONCLUSION: Our results were comparable to alternative materials in respect of recurrence and were superior in respect of both granuloma formation and infection. Silicone is superior to all listed materials in respect of ease of adjustment of the sling in cases where the ideal lid position was not achieved after primary surgery.

Randomised controlled single-blind study of conventional versus depot mydriatic drug delivery prior to cataract surgery.

BACKGROUND: A prerequisite for safe cataract surgery is an adequately dilated pupil. The authors conducted a trial to assess the efficacy (in terms of pupil diameter) of a depot method of pre-operative pupil dilatation, as compared with repeated instillations of drops (which is time-consuming for the nursing staff and uncomfortable for the patient). METHODS: A prospective randomised masked trial was conducted comprising 130 patients with no significant ocular history undergoing elective clear corneal phacoemulsification. 65 patients had mydriatic drops (Tropicamide 1%, Phenylephrine 2.5%, Diclofenac sodium 0.1%) instilled prior to surgery, 65 had a wick soaked in the same drop mixture placed in the inferior fornix. Horizontal pupil diameters were recorded on a millimetre scale immediately prior to surgery. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in pupil size between the two groups (p = 0.255, Student's t-test). CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference between the mydriasis obtained with the depot system compared with conventional drop application. Use of a depot mydriatic delivery system appears to be a safe and efficient method of drug delivery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register ISRCTN78047760.

Optimization of biometry for intraocular lens implantation using the Zeiss IOLMaster.

PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of biometry using conventional A-scan ultrasonography and partial coherence interferometry, and to improve the accuracy of biometry by sequential audit of postoperative refractive error. METHODS: The study was performed in three phases. In phase 1, 20 consecutive patients undergoing routine phacoemulsification underwent biometry using both A-scan ultrasonography and the Zeiss IOLMaster (ZIOLM). A single experienced optometrist refracted all patients 2 weeks after surgery. The errors between expected and achieved refraction were calculated and compared between the two methods. In phases 2 and 3, a further 22 and 20 patients, respectively, were recruited and only the ZIOLM was used for biometry. The manufacturer's suggested A-constant was refined and the error between expected and achieved refraction was calculated. RESULTS: In phase 1, the median unexpected error for the ZIOLM was +0.63 (interquartile range +0.368 to +1.015) and for A-scan biometry was - 0.24 (interquartile range - 1.335 to +0.802). In phase 1 65% of patients' postoperative refractions were found to be within 1.0 D of emmetropia using the ZIOLM (55% using A-scan biometry). Refinements to the A-constant improved this to 95% by phase 3. CONCLUSION: An error was identified in IOL power estimation with the ZIOLM, when using the manufacturer's recommended A-constant (recommended and previously optimized ultrasound A-constant 118.0; ZIOLM optimized A-constant 118.6). Serial modifications to the A-constant were successful in reducing the unexpected error to well within the tolerance limits of published international standards.

Optimization of biometry for intraocular lens implantation using the Zeiss IOLMaster.

PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of biometry using conventional A-scan ultrasonography and partial coherence interferometry, and to improve the accuracy of biometry by sequential audit of postoperative refractive error. METHODS: The study was performed in three phases. In phase 1, 20 consecutive patients undergoing routine phacoemulsification underwent biometry using both A-scan ultrasonography and the Zeiss IOLMaster (ZIOLM). A single experienced optometrist refracted all patients 2 weeks after surgery. The errors between expected and achieved refraction were calculated and compared between the two methods. In phases 2 and 3, a further 22 and 20 patients, respectively, were recruited and only the ZIOLM was used for biometry. The manufacturer's suggested A-constant was refined and the error between expected and achieved refraction was calculated. RESULTS: In phase 1, the median unexpected error for the ZIOLM was+0.63 (interquartile range+0.368 to+1.015) and for A-scan biometry was --0.24 (interquartile range--1.335 to+0.802). In phase 1 65% of patients' postoperative refractions were found to be within 1.0 D of emmetropia using the ZIOLM (55% using A-scan biometry). Refinements to the A-constant improved this to 95% by phase 3. CONCLUSION: An error was identified in IOL power estimation with the ZIOLM, when using the manufacturer's recommended A-constant (recommended and previously optimized ultrasound A-constant 118.0; ZIOLM optimized A-constant 118.6). Serial modifications to the A-constant were successful in reducing the unexpected error to well within the tolerance limits of published international standards.