[Aggressiveness and violence in daily ophthalmology practice: Descriptive analysis of a survey sent to residents and assistants in Grand Est and Bourgogne-Franche-Comté]. / Agressivité et violence au cours de l'exercice professionnel en ophtalmologie : analyse descriptive d'un questionnaire adressé aux internes et assistants des régions Grand Est, Bourgogne-Franche-Comté.

INTRODUCTION: The goal of this study was to estimate the prevalence of workplace violence in a population of young ophthalmologists in France and to characterize these situations. METHODS: We conducted an epidemiological descriptive, cross-sectional, multi-center study based on an anonymous questionnaire. We submitted a questionnaire to all ophthalmology residents and fellows (n=157) in the Grand Est and Bourgogne-Franche-Comté regions between December 2020 and March 2021. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 76.4% (n=120, 55% female and 45% male) of whom 81.6% reported having faced aggression at least once. For 50.9% of participants, aggression had occurred several times per year. These situations occurred during the first year of residency in 64.3% of cases. They mainly consisted of verbal aggression (98.8%) by a patient or their relatives (43.7% and 29.8%). The main complaints voiced by these individuals concerned the wait time (40%) and the feeling of lack of competence or improper medical care (26.8%). Fifty-seven percent of people who faced these situations thought about it for at least a week, and 20.4% of those exposed felt anxiety at work after the incident. CONCLUSION: We found high prevalence of verbal aggression in professional ophthalmology practice. Although these situations were mainly verbal aggression without significant consequences, they sometimes lead to anxiety in the aftermath. We should prepare medical students to manage them, through appropriate theoretical and practical training, such as medical simulation described in this article.

Risk factors for keratoconus progression after treatment by accelerated cross-linking (A-CXL): A prospective 24-month study.

PURPOSE: Identification of potential predictive factors for keratoconus progression after treatment by accelerated Cross-linking (A-CXL) SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: Evaluation of clinical and topographic outcomes for two years following accelerated cross-linking treatment for progressive keratoconus including: best spectacle corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), thinnest pachymetry, maximum keratometry (Kmax), cylinder. STUDY: Prospective, interventional, monocentric study. SITE: Metz-Thionville Regional Medical Center, Lorraine University, Mercy Hospital, Metz, France. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included 82 eyes of 60 patients between March 2014 and June 2016 who underwent accelerated corneal cross-linking (A-CXL) with epithelial debridement for progressive keratoconus, with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. A complete clinical evaluation and corneal topography were performed before cross-linking, and subsequently at 6, 12 and 24 months post-procedure. The following parameters were monitored during follow-up: best spectacle corrected visual acuity (BSCVA), minimal pachymetry, maximum keratometry (Kmax), mean anterior and posterior curvatures, maximum posterior curvature, presence of optical aberrations, subdivided into spherical aberration, coma, astigmatism, higher order optical aberrations and residual optical aberrations. After a 2-year follow-up, two groups, defined as "responders" and "non-responders" to treatment, were separated for analysis, and their initial characteristics were compared. RESULTS: Data for 82 eyes of 60 patients with progressive keratoconus with a mean age of 24±7 years were studied. Fourteen eyes (17.1%) showed signs of progression after treatment by A-CXL (non-responders), and 68 eyes (82.9%) showed stabilization of the disease (responders). Characteristics of non-responding eyes after A-CXL included a younger mean age (20±5 vs. 25±7 years) (P=0.04) and a lower initial mean BCVA for non-responders of 0.44±0.16 logMAR vs. 0.29±0.19 logMAR (P=0.03). Non-responders also had a higher mean maximal posterior curvature (AKB) of -10.84±1.72D vs. -9.46± 1.12D (P=0.03). They also showed more higher order optical aberrations (3.84±1.72D vs. 2.4±1.02D; P=0.01), including coma (3.85±1.81D vs. 2.1±1.01D; P=0.03) and more residual aberrations than responders (1.05±0.44D vs. 0.45±0.6D; P=0.005). No significant differences were found between responders and non-responders for the other parameters in our study. CONCLUSION: Eyes with progressive keratoconus who did not respond to A-CXL treatment were the most aggressive cases in the youngest patients, with highest maximum corneal curvatures and most pronounced optical aberrations. These patients should be informed in advance of the high risk of non-response to A-CXL treatment, and of the potential need for additional treatment in the future.

Tobacco smoking in crosslinked keratoconus patients.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the possibly protective link of smoking in keratoconic patients treated with accelerated cross-linking. METHODS: A telephone survey was conducted among 80 KC patients treated by accelerated cross-linking (A-CXL). The questions focused on general history, possible atopy and smoking habits. Results were compared to those of the general population by indirect standardization by age and sex according to the French national INPES survey. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients with KC were analyzed. The mean age at diagnosis was 22 years (SD 5). The mean age at which A-CXL was performed was 23 years (SD 6). Daily smokers represented 19 %, occasional smokers 8 %, ex-smokers 21 % and non-smokers 52 %. The mean age at which the patients began smoking was 17 (SD 2) years. Ex-smokers quit at a mean age of 24 (SD 4) years. The observed rates and expected rates of daily smokers were 19 % and 39 % respectively at the time of the survey (P=0.01), 24 % and 35 % at the time of the A-CXL treatment (P=0.10) and 31 % and 35 % at the time of diagnosis (P=0.58). The decrease in the rate of observed daily smokers over time was significant (P=0.02). DISCUSSION: Our data does not appear to suggest a significant protective effect of smoking on the occurrence of KC. It shows a lesser proportion of smokers in KC patients after A-CXL, but this difference did not exist at the time of KC diagnosis.