Safety profile of anterior chamber paracentesis performed at the slit lamp.

BACKGROUND: Anterior chamber paracentesis is a valuable diagnostic tool in the management of uveitis, but may be underutilized because of concerns over its safety. We evaluated the safety profile of anterior chamber paracentesis performed at the slit lamp as an outpatient procedure. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational case series in a single tertiary centre. PARTICIPANTS: Five hundred and sixty patients with uveitis undergoing anterior chamber paracentesis. METHODS: All anterior chamber paracenteses performed at the slit lamp for diagnostic or research purposes between January 1997 and June 2009 were analysed with regard to adverse events and pipet/syringe used. Procedures were included whether carried out on undilated or dilated pupils. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adverse events and serious adverse events. RESULTS: Out of 560 paracenteses, 510 were performed with a 27-gauge fixed-needle tuberculin syringe, and 50 using an O'Rourke aqueous pipet. All patients were prescribed a short course of topical antibiotic and examined post-procedure and 1-2 weeks later. Out of 560 procedures there were four complications (0.7%). Two patients had inadvertent injection of sterile air into the anterior chamber but with spontaneous resolution and no adverse outcome (O'Rourke pipet for both). One patient had anterior lens capsule touch that was self-sealing and left a tiny localized opacity (tuberculin syringe). One patient had an allergic reaction to povidone iodine. No patients reported pain, and there were no cases of iris trauma, entry site leak, hypotony, hyphaema or endophthalmitis. CONCLUSION: Anterior chamber paracentesis can be performed safely as an outpatient procedure at the slit lamp following adequate aseptic precaution, and appropriate counselling.

Patient expectation and satisfaction after macular hole surgery.

PURPOSE: To assess patient expectation, visual improvement, and patient satisfaction after macular hole surgery. METHODS: Fifty-three consecutive patients completed a self-administered questionnaire after macular hole surgery. Responses for expectation of visual improvement before surgery and subjective visual assessment after surgery were scored from 0 to 10 (0 = no improvement in vision, 10 = full improvement). Visual acuity was measured using Snellen charts and converted to logMAR equivalent for statistical analysis. Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney U tests were performed using the Minitab statistical software program; p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Thirty-eight (71%) patients were satisfied with the outcome, 14 (26%) were not, and 1 was uncertain. Both satisfied and dissatisfied patients had no difference in baseline preoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA; 6/60 and 6/60, respectively). There was also no significant difference in median postoperative BCVA between both groups (6/24 and 6/29, respectively, p = 0.6). In satisfied patients, median vision expectation score of 6 was equally similar to the median subjective postoperative vision improvement score of 6, p = 0.7. However, in dissatisfied patients, median vision expectation score (8) was significantly higher than median postoperative subjective vision improvement score (1), p = 0.0001. The commonest reason for dissatisfaction was perceived visual reduction (7/14 patients). CONCLUSIONS: In the dissatisfied patients, expectation was significantly higher, and subjective assessment of vision after surgery was lower than in satisfied patients, although they had similar improvement in BCVA. Visual acuity and patient satisfaction are not always directly correlated. An important factor in patient satisfaction is expectation.