Effects of mechanical stimulation on mastectomy scars within 2 months of surgery: A single-center, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: One common complication after mastectomy is thickened scars at the surgical site that impair shoulder function. This study aimed to investigate the effects of mechanical stimulation on scar appearance, arm function, and quality of life of breast cancer survivors after mastectomy. METHODS: This was a single-center, single-blinded (assessor), randomized controlled trial with a 3-month follow-up. Women who had undergone mastectomy in the preceding 6 weeks for breast cancer were randomly allocated to an experimental group and a control group by permuted block randomization (block size=6). The experimental group received conventional treatment (mobilization and strengthening exercises) and mechanical stimulation applied to the mastectomy scar twice a week for 6 weeks (12 sessions). The control group received 12 sessions of conventional treatment only. Primary outcome measures included the Vancouver Scar scale (VSS) to assess scar quality. The secondary outcomes were spectrophotometry, the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire; shoulder range of motion; the Numeric Pain Rating scale; hand grip strength; and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Breast Cancer (FACT-B). RESULTS: One hundred and eight participants were equally randomized to 2 groups. All follow-up assessments were completed in September 2018. Intention-to-treat analysis revealed a significant group × time interaction on the VSS (η² = 0.161, p < 0.001), DASH (η² = 0.060, p = 0.003), and FACT-B functional well-being scores (η² = 0.033, p = 0.034), indicating that the experimental group (n=54) showed greater improvement in these outcomes than the control group (n=54). Post-hoc analysis showed that the improvements in the VSS and DASH scores remained apparent at the 3-month follow-up. Other outcomes did not yield significant group × time interaction. No adverse effects were reported. CONCLUSION: The addition of mechanical stimulation to a conventional intervention program improved scar appearance, arm function, and functional well-being compared with conventional intervention alone.

Monovision correction for small-angle diplopia.

PURPOSE: To assess quantitatively the efficacy of monovision correction in the treatment of acquired small-angle binocular diplopia in adult patients. DESIGN: Prospective, interventional case series. METHODS: Twenty patients with symptomatic diplopia were enrolled in a prospective treatment trial at a tertiary university neuro-ophthalmology practice. All had stable deviations of 10 prism diopters or less for more than 3 months. Each received monovision spectacles, contact lenses, or both with distance correction in the dominant eye. Half received a +3.00-diopter add and the others received +2.50 diopters. The validated and standardized Diplopia Questionnaire and Amblyopia and Strabismus Questionnaire were used to quantify the efficacy of monovision correction for diplopia by measuring the functional impact on vision-specific quality of life. RESULTS: primary outcome: Based on the results of the Diplopia Questionnaire, 85% of patients experienced significant improvement in diplopia symptoms after monovision correction. There was a statistically significant 58.6% improvement in the Diplopia Questionnaire score in our patients (P < .0001). secondary outcome: The Amblyopia and Strabismus Questionnaire scores demonstrated improved quality of life and daily function after monovision correction (P = .03), especially in the areas of double vision(P = .0003) and social contact and appearance (P = .0002). CONCLUSIONS: Monovision decreased the frequency of diplopia and improved subjects' quality of life. Monovision may be a feasible alternative for presbyopic diplopic patients who are dissatisfied with other conservative treatment options.

Peripheral ulcerative keratitis in a child.

Peripheral ulcerative keratitis is a destructive process involving perilimbal corneal inflammation and an overlying epithelial defect. It can be a manifestation of systemic autoimmune diseases or can be secondary to an infectious process. We present a case of a 7-year-old girl with peripheral ulcerative keratitis of unknown etiology. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first such case reported in a child.

Surgical waiting times for ocular and periocular cancer patients in Toronto.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate surgical waiting times experienced by intraocular and periocular cancer patients in Toronto and to assess the period of greatest delay between certain stages of ocular cancer care. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on cases of adult patients who underwent surgery between January 2002 and December 2004 for malignant or premalignant tumours of the eye and ocular adnexa. Waiting time intervals were calculated between 5 time points: initial presentation to referring physician or optometrist, date of referral to oculoplastics or ocular oncology, initial assessment, consent date, and surgery date. Total surgical waiting time was the period between the initial presentation and surgery date. RESULTS: The mean total surgical waiting time was 85.93 (standard error [SE] 212.70) days. The 5% trimmed mean total waiting time was 51.07 days. The longest mean total waiting time averaged 94.16 (SE 18.69) days for patients with orbital or lacrimal tumours. For all patients, the interval of greatest delay was between initial assessment and consent (according to means) or between referral and initial assessment (according to 5% trimmed means). For patients with lid, brow, or conjunctival tumours the interval of greatest delay was between referral and initial assessment, and for those with orbital, lacrimal, or intraocular tumours it was between initial assessment and consent. INTERPRETATION: By measuring the period between consent and surgery, the Ontario government is not measuring the interval of greatest delay in ocular cancer care. The wait-time registry may benefit from including data from patients with periocular tumours.

Retinal tear and raised intraocular pressure following unintentional intraocular botulinum toxin type A injection.

CASE REPORT: A 67-year-old woman with a 30-year history of dysthyroid orbitopathy and diplopia had an inadvertent injection of botulinum toxin type A into the vitreous cavity. Full pupil mydriasis and an intraocular pressure (IOP) of 50 mm Hg in the right eye were noted after the injection. An attack of acute angle closure was initially suspected despite a patent peripheral iridotomy (PI). The episode resolved with topical and intravenous IOP-lowering agents. Postoperative retinal examination revealed a retinal tear, which was successfully treated with laser photocoagulation. Visual acuity returned to baseline within 2 weeks, and the results of further retinal examinations remained stable. COMMENTS: This case supports the animal studies and human case reports that have demonstrated no retinal toxicity after intraocular injections of botulinum toxin type A. Temporary mydriasis and elevated IOP that may occur after injection do not appear to be detrimental and can be treated with topical and intravenous IOP-lowering agents. Transiently elevated IOP after injection is most likely due to volume increase, though acute angle closure with occlusion of the PI might be considered.