The use of fibrin glue in pterygium surgery with amniotic membrane transplantation: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of fibrin glue versus sutures in pterygium surgery with amniotic membrane transplantation. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Guidelines. An electronic search identified all studies comparing the outcomes of using fibrin glue versus sutures in pterygium surgery with amniotic membrane transplantation. Conjunctival inflammation, postoperative pain and discomfort, pterygium recurrence, pyogenic granuloma, and surgical time were primary outcome measures. Secondary outcome measures included amniotic membrane transplant outcomes, time to recurrence, graft loss, and subconjunctival hemorrhage. Fixed and random-effects models were used for the analysis. RESULTS: Four studies enrolling 180 patients were identified. Conjunctival inflammation (odds ratio [OR] 0.21, P = 0.0005) demonstrated a significant difference favoring the fibrin glue group. Despite the trend favoring the use of fibrin glue, there were no significant differences in terms of postoperative pain and discomfort (OR = 0.46, P = 0.25), pterygium recurrence (OR = 0.74, P = 0.48), pyogenic granuloma (OR = 0.47, P = 0.38), and surgical time (mean difference = -17.52, P = 0.13). For secondary outcomes, fibrin glue had significantly fewer cases of graft loss compared with sutures. No statistically significant difference was found in amniotic membrane graft outcomes, time to recurrence, and subconjunctival hemorrhage. CONCLUSION: Fibrin glue is comparable to the sutures used in pterygium surgery with amniotic membrane transplantation as it significantly improves conjunctival inflammation and does not increase postoperative pain and discomfort, pterygium recurrence, pyogenic granuloma, and surgical time.

Extended Depth of Focus Versus Trifocal for Intraocular Lens Implantation: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the extended depth of focus (EDOF) vs trifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) in patients undergoing IOL implantation. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: An electronic search was conducted as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to include studies comparing EDOF vs trifocal IOLs. Refraction and visual acuity were primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included defocus curves, intraocular aberrations, contrast sensitivity (CS), quality of vision (QoV) questionnaire score, haloes and glare, spectacle independence, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: A total of 22 studies enrolling 2200 eyes were identified. Trifocal IOL showed a significant improvement in sphere (mean difference [MD] = -0.23; P = .001) and spherical equivalence (MD = -0.11, P = .0001) compared to EDOF IOL. No difference was observed in cylinder (MD = -0.03, P = .25) or astigmatism. Trifocal IOL had superior near visual acuity outcomes, namely uncorrected near visual acuity (MD = 0.12, P < .00001) and distance-corrected near visual acuity (MD = 0.12, P = .002). Postoperative corrected distance visual acuity (MD = -0.01, P = .01) was significantly improved for the EDOF group, although no difference was noted in postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (MD = 0.00, P = .84), uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (MD = 0.01, P = .68) or distance-corrected intermediate visual acuity (MD = -0.01, P = .39). Defocus curve favored trifocal IOLs at near vision and EDOF IOLs at intermediate vision. Ocular aberration, CS, haloes (odds ratio = 0.64, P = .10), glare, and patient satisfaction were not statistically significant between the groups. The trifocal IOL was associated with an improved QoV questionnaire score (MD = 1.24, P = 0.03) and spectacle independence (odds ratio = 0.26, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Trifocal IOLs improved uncorrected near visual acuity compared to EDOF IOLs. Uncorrected distance and intermediate visual acuity, halos, and glare were not statistically different between both groups.

Accelerated Corneal Collagen Cross-Linking Protocols for Progressive Keratoconus: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of 18 mW/cm 2 (5 minutes) versus 9 mW/cm 2 (10 minutes) accelerated corneal collagen cross-linking protocols in patients with progressive keratoconus. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, and electronic information was searched to identify studies comparing the outcomes of 5- versus 10-minute protocols in patients with progressive keratoconus. Mean changes in uncorrected visual acuity, best-corrected visual acuity, cylinder (diopters), thinnest corneal thickness, corneal keratometry values (K1 and K2), corneal high-order aberration (HOA), spherical aberration, coma, and trefoil were the primary outcome measures. Secondary outcome measures included the mean change in central corneal thickness and postoperative complications. Random effects modeling was used for the analysis. RESULTS: Four studies that enrolled 329 eyes were included. The 10-minute protocol had significantly improved outcomes compared with the 5-minute protocol for the mean changes in K1 and K2 ( P < 0.00001), corneal total HOA ( P = 0.0002), and corneal coma ( P = 0.00001). However, no statistically significant differences were found between the 2 protocols in uncorrected visual acuity, best-corrected visual acuity, cylinder, thinnest corneal thickness, spherical aberration, or trefoil. The 5-minute protocol was associated with a significantly lower mean change in the central corneal thickness for secondary outcomes. In addition, no significant differences were found between the 2 protocols for postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: The 10-minute protocol had better K1, K2, and HOA outcomes than the 5-minute protocol, but no statistically significant differences in the other outcomes.

Effect of waiting time estimates on patients satisfaction in the emergency department in a tertiary care center.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the influence of emergency department (ED) waiting time estimate provision on the satisfaction of patients.  Methods: This was a randomized controlled trial at King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia between September 2017 and May 2018. It included 18 to 70 years old Arabic-speaking acute care patients. After being divided into 2 groups, the intervention group alone was provided waiting time estimates. Both groups answered 2 questionnaires evaluating their satisfaction and illness perception before and after seeing a doctor. Results: One-hundred patients were included. No significant difference found in waiting time satisfaction scores between groups (intervention (5.92/10±3.13), control (5.45/10±3.38), p=0.476). Demographics and illness perception had an insignificant impact on satisfaction. Waiting time estimate was preferred by most participants (70%). Conclusion: Providing waiting time estimation did not affect satisfaction but was preferred to have in the ED by most.