Patient-centered and visual quality outcomes of premium cataract surgery: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Over 8 million cataract surgeries are performed in the United States and the European Union annually, with many patients choosing to pay out of pocket for premium options including premium intraocular lens implants (IOLs) or laser-assisted cataract surgery (LACS). This report provides a systematic review evaluating patient-centered and visual quality outcomes comparing standard monofocal IOLs to premium cataract surgery options. METHODS: PubMed and EMBASE were searched for publications published between January 1, 1980, and September 18, 2016, on multifocal, accommodative, and toric IOLs, monovision, and LACS, which reported on 1) dysphotopsias, 2) contrast sensitivity, 3) spectacle independence, 4) vision-related quality of life or patient satisfaction, and 5) IOL exchange. RESULTS: Multifocal lenses achieved higher rates of spectacle independence compared to monofocal lenses but also had higher reported frequency of dysphotopsia and worse contrast sensitivity, especially with low light or glare. Accommodative lenses were not associated with reduced contrast sensitivity or more dysphotopsia but had only modest improvements in spectacle independence compared to monofocal lenses. Studies of monovision did not target a sufficiently myopic outcome in the near-vision eye to achieve the full potential for spectacle independence. Patients reported high levels of overall satisfaction regardless of implanted IOL. No studies correlated patient-reported outcomes with patient expectations. CONCLUSIONS: Studies are needed to thoroughly compare patient-reported outcomes with concomitant patient expectations. In light of the substantial patient costs for premium options, patients and their surgeons will benefit from a better understanding of which surgical options best meet patients' expectations and how those expectations can be impacted by premium versus monofocal-including monovision-options.

Impact of a Dedicated Research Rotation during Ophthalmology Residency.

BACKGROUND: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires that ophthalmology residents participate in scholarly activity during residency. However, residents lack protected time for research. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of a dedicated research rotation on scholarly productivity and research experience during residency. METHODS: This cohort study compared two groups of ophthalmology residents. Residents who graduated between 2004-2009 did not have dedicated research time and served as control residents (CR) while residents who graduated between 2010-2015 had a dedicated research rotation and served as the intervention group (research residents, RR). Primary outcomes included publications and presentations recorded over a four-year period, spanning the three years of residency and first year after graduation. These were analyzed by linear regression and t-tests. Residents also took surveys regarding research experience and chi squared tests and logistic regression were used to compare these results. RESULTS: The RR had 0.97 more publications and 1.3 more presentations compared to the CR after adjusting for PhD status, pre-residency publications and presentations, age at graduation, gender and race (p=0.09 and p=0.02, respectively). RR had higher odds of reporting adequate time to complete research (OR=13.11, 95% CI 3.58-48.03, p < 0.001) and satisfaction with their research experience (OR=6.96, 95% CI=2.104-23.053, p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Residents with a research rotation had more time to complete research, were more satisfied with their research experience, and generated more publications and presentations compared to residents without the research rotation. A research rotation can help meet ACGME requirements and help residents achieve greater scholarly activity.

History and development of ophthalmology in Taiwan.

Western medicine was first introduced to Taiwan by medical missionaries in the mid-19th century. Modernization of medicine was systematically transplanted to Taiwan in the Japanese colonial period, and ophthalmology was established third among hospital departments, following internal medicine and surgery. Dr Hidetaka Yamaguchi, an ophthalmologist, was the first head of the Taihoku Hospital, later known as National Taiwan University Hospital (NTUH; Taipei, Taiwan). Ophthalmologists during the colonial period conducted studies on tropical and infectious eye diseases. After World War II, ophthalmologists at NTUH played an important role in medical education, residency training, studies, and teaching. Dr Yan-Fei Yang established the Taiwan Ophthalmological Society in 1960 and instituted its official journal in 1962. Dr Ho-Ming Lin established the Department of Ophthalmology at the Tri-Service General Hospital in the 1950s and the Veterans General Hospital in the 1960s. Taiwan ophthalmologists eradicated trachoma by 1971. Cataract surgery and penetrating keratoplasty were initially performed in the 1960s. Currently, there are about 1600 ophthalmologists in Taiwan conducting an estimated 120,000 cataract surgeries and 600 corneal transplantations annually. Many subspecialty societies have been established recently that serve to educate Taiwanese ophthalmologists and to connect with international ophthalmic societies. Taiwan ophthalmologists continue to contribute to the advancement of ophthalmic knowledge globally.

Evidence for the use of nutritional supplements and herbal medicines in common eye diseases.

PURPOSE: To provide a perspective by reviewing the evidence for the role of nutritional supplements and herbal medicines in the common causes of visual impairment. DESIGN: Retrospective literature review. METHODS: Published studies and information found in PubMed, International Bibliographic Information of Dietary Supplements, and selected websites were reviewed for the role of nutritional and herbal medicines in the treatment of age-related macular degeneration, cataract, diabetic retinopathy, and glaucoma. The studies were evaluated systematically for their study design, study population, benefits, risks, biases, and criteria for the categorization of the level of evidence. RESULTS: The available evidence does support the use of certain vitamins and minerals in patients with certain forms of age-related macular degeneration. For cataracts, the available evidence does not support these supplements to prevent or treat cataracts in healthy individuals. For diabetic retinopathy and glaucoma, the available evidence does not support the use of these supplements. In the category of herbal medicines, the available evidence does not support the use of herbal medicines for any of these ocular diseases. CONCLUSION: Because of the widespread use of nutritional supplements and herbal medicines, ophthalmologists should be aware of their use so that they can inform patients properly when the supplements and herbal medicine are being used for eye disease.