Surgical checklist for cataract surgery: progress with the initiative by the Royal College of Ophthalmologists to improve patient safety.
ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: The World Health Organisation (WHO) identified patient safety in surgery as an important public health matter and advised the adoption of a universal peri-operative surgical checklist. An adapted version of the WHO checklist has been mandatory in the National Health Service since 2010. Wrong intraocular lens (IOL) implantation is a particular safety concern in ophthalmology. The Royal College of Ophthalmologists launched a bespoke checklist for cataract surgery in 2010 to reduce the likelihood of preventable errors. We sought to ascertain the use of checklists in cataract surgery in 2012. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A survey of members of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists seeking views on the use of checklists in cataract surgery. Four hundred and sixty-nine completed responses were received (18% response rate). RESULTS: Respondents worked in England (75%), Scotland (11%), Wales (5%), Northern Ireland (2%), the Republic of Ireland (1%), and overseas (6%). Ninety-four per cent of respondents support the use of a checklist for cataract surgery and 85% say that they always use a checklist before cataract surgery. Sixty-seven per cent of cataract surgeons stated they undertake a pre-operative team brief. Thirty-six per cent use a cataract surgery checklist developed locally, 18% use the college's bespoke cataract surgery checklist, 39% use a generic surgical checklist, and 4% reported that they do not use a checklist. CONCLUSION: Ninety-three per cent of cataract surgeons responding to the questionnaire report using a surgical checklist and 67% use a team brief. However, only 54% use a checklist, which addresses the selection of the correct intraocular implant. We recommend wider adoption of checklists, which address risks relevant to cataract surgery, in particular the possibility of selection of an incorrect IOL.
Project description:Biometry has become one of the most important steps in modern cataract surgery and, according to the Royal College of Ophthalmologists Cataract Surgery Guidelines, what matters most is achieving excellent results. This paper is aimed at the NHS cataract surgeon and intends to be a critical review of the recent literature on biometry for cataract surgery, summarising the evidence for current best practice standards and available practical strategies for improving outcomes for patients. With modern optical biometry for the majority of patients, informed formula choice and intraocular lens (IOL) constant optimisation outcomes of more than 90% within ± 1 D and more than 60% within ± 0.5 D of target are achievable. There are a number of strategies available to surgeons wishing to exceed these outcomes, the most promising of which are the use of strict-tolerance IOLs and second eye prediction refinement.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:To determine if differences exist between pediatric ophthalmologists and uveitis ophthalmologists in the treatment of pediatric uveitic cataracts and placement of intraocular lenses. METHODS:Uveitis ophthalmologists and pediatric ophthalmologists were surveyed via an online poll regarding their therapeutic management of pediatric uveitic cataract and intraocular lens (IOL) placement. RESULTS:Sixty-two responses from uveitis ophthalmologists and 47 responses from pediatric ophthalmologists were recorded. According to 79% of all responses, uveitis was not a contraindication for primary IOL implantation in patients with controlled intraocular inflammation. Pediatric ophthalmologists were more likely to respond that the presence of chronic juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated iridocyclitis, pars planitis, or recurrent acute anterior uveitis is a contraindication for primary IOL implantation in pediatric cases with full control of intraocular inflammation. There was no consensus within either specialty with regard to the preferred IOL material for lens implantation. Uveitis ophthalmologists were more likely to report the use of intravenous and intravitreal steroids for perioperative treatment. In cataract surgery for a child with recurrent acute anterior uveitis, a higher percentage of uveitis ophthalmologists (71%) than pediatric ophthalmologists (50%) responded that the posterior capsule should be primarily opened. A higher percentage of uveitis ophthalmologists also stated that anterior vitrectomy should be performed at the time of cataract surgery in all three uveitis types. CONCLUSIONS:Pediatric ophthalmologists and uveitis ophthalmologists have similar approaches to the management of pediatric uveitic cataract removal and IOL insertion, but several differences remain between these subspecialties. Continued collaboration between the subspecialties would be helpful to better develop consistent criteria to improve patient care.
Project description:Patients often pay for specialty intraocular lenses (IOLs) for cataract surgery covered by universal insurance. This practice creates the potential for inequitable pricing where the medical service provider is also the retailer. We measured the variation in prices between cataract surgeons for the same IOL and associated testing.We telephoned every cataract surgeon in Ontario, Canada, and asked their price for the most common type of specialty IOL as a prospective patient. We measured the total prices quoted and variation between providers.We contacted 404 ophthalmologists. There were 256 that performed cataract surgery but 127 offered the most commonly employed specialty IOL and would provide a price to patients over the telephone. We obtained prices from all 127 ophthalmologists. Prices for the same lens and associated testing varied substantially between ophthalmologists from $358 to $2790 (median $615, interquartile range $528-$915). There was variation in all components of the total out-of-pocket price, including the price for the IOL itself, charges for uninsured eye measurements, and non-specific supplemental fees.Although cataract surgery is covered by public health insurance, some ophthalmologists charge much more than others for the same specialty IOL and associated testing. Greater access to price information and better regulatory control could help ensure patients receive fair value for out-of-pocket health expenses.
Project description:PURPOSE: To determine current knowledge and opinion on revalidation, and methods of cataract surgery audit in Scotland and to outline the current and future possibilities for electronic cataract surgery audit. METHODS: In 2010 we conducted a prospective, cross-sectional, Scottish-wide survey on revalidation knowledge and opinion, and cataract audit practice among all senior NHS ophthalmologists. Results were anonymised and recorded manually for analysis. RESULTS: In all, 61% of the ophthalmologists surveyed took part. Only 33% felt ready to take part in revalidation, whereas 76% felt they did not have adequate information about the process. Also, 71% did not feel revalidation would improve patient care, but 85% agreed that cataract surgery audit is essential for ophthalmic practice. In addition, 91% audit their cataract outcomes; 52% do so continuously. Further, 63% audit their subspecialist surgical results. Only 25% audit their cataract surgery practice electronically, and only 12% collect clinical data using a hospital PAS system. Funding and system incompatibility were the main reasons cited for the lack of electronic audit setup. Currently, eight separate hospital IT patient administration systems are used across 14 health boards in Scotland. CONCLUSION: Revalidation is set to commence in 2012. The Royal College of Ophthalmologists will use cataract outcome audit as a tool to ensure surgical competency for the process. Retrospective manual auditing of cataract outcome is time consuming, and can be avoided with an electronic system. Scottish ophthalmologists view revalidation with scepticism and appear to have inadequate knowledge of the process. However, they strongly agree with the concept of cataract surgery audit. The existing and future electronic applications that may support surgical audit are commercial electronic records, web-based applications, centrally funded software applications, and robust NHS connections between community and hospital.
Project description:With more than 1.5 million Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) procedures having already been performed worldwide in an ageing population, intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in post-SMILE eyes will inevitably become a common challenge for ophthalmologists. Since no refractive outcomes of cataract surgery following SMILE have been published, there is a lack of empirical data for optimizing IOL power calculation. Using the ray tracing as the standard of reference - a purely physical method that obviates the need for any empirical optimization - we analyzed the agreement of various IOL power calculation formulas derived from the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons (ASCRS) post-keratorefractive surgery online calculator. In our study of 88 post-SMILE eyes, the Masket formula showed the smallest mean prediction error [-0.36?±?0.32 diopters (D)] and median absolute error (0.33D) and yielded the largest percentage of eyes within ±0.50D (70%) in reference to ray tracing. Non-inferior refractive prediction errors and ±0.50D accuracies were achieved by the Barrett True K, Barrett True K No History and the Potvin-Hill formula. Use of these formulas in conjunction with ray tracing is recommended until sufficient data for empirical optimization of IOL power calculation after SMILE is available.
Project description:BACKGROUND: Cataracts are a common and significant cause of visual impairment globally. We aimed to evaluate uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) as an outcome in treating astigmatic cataract patients to assist clinicians or ophthalmologists in their decision making process regarding available interventions. METHODS: Medline, Embase and Evidence Based Reviews were systematically reviewed to identify relevant studies reporting changes in UDVA, UIVA and UNVA after cataract surgery in presbyopic patients. Strict inclusion/exclusion criteria were used to exclude any non-relevant studies. Relevant outcomes (UDVA, UIVA and UNVA) were identified from the studies retrieved through the systematic review process. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 11 studies which reported UCVA. All 11 studies reported UDVA. Four brands of toric intraocular lenses (IOLs) were reported in these studies. All studies identified in the literature search reported improvements in UDVA following surgical implant of a toric IOL. The largest improvements in VA were reported using the Human Optics MicroSil toric IOL (0.74 LogMAR, UDVA) and the smallest improvements were also reported using the Human Optics MicroSil toric IOL (0.23 LogMAR, UDVA) in a different study. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this systematic review showed the aggregate of studies reporting a beneficial increase in UDVA with the use of toric IOLs in cataract patients with astigmatism.
Project description:BACKGROUND:The standard approach to treat cataracts is Delayed Sequential Bilateral Cataract Surgery (DSBCS), during which patients have a separate operation date for each eye. An alternative method of delivery is Immediately Sequential Bilateral Cataract Surgery (ISBCS). The aim of this project was to examine the attitudes and beliefs of UK ophthalmologists towards ISBCS, explore their reasons to either practise or not practise ISBCS and identify barriers hindering its implementation in the UK. METHODS:A questionnaire was distributed to consultant members of The Royal College of Ophthalmologists (RCOphth, UK) and collected electronically. An initial screening question in regards to prior experience with ISBCS directed the rest of the survey; participants were asked to rate the importance of several factors with regards to performing ISBCS. Free text options were also available. Descriptive analysis was subsequently performed. RESULTS:Of the 1357 recipients, 130 (9.6%) ophthalmologists completed the survey. Of those, 13.9% were currently performing ISBCS, 83.1% had never performed, and 3.1% had previously done so but since stopped. The main factors that acted as barriers were lack of: (1) College approval (20.5%); (2) medico-legal approval (20.2%); (3) evidence to support the use of ISBCS (16.0%); and (4) hospital approval (13.3%). Additionally, the perceived risk of complications for patients played an important role when considering ISBCS, with the risk of endophthalmitis being most feared. CONCLUSIONS:This survey demonstrates some of the barriers that prevent ophthalmologist's performing ISBCS in the UK. There is a need for further exploration in this field to evaluate the effect of addressing any of these concerns on the implementation of ISBCS.
Project description:Intraocular lens (IOL) exchange after cataract surgery is unusual but may be associated with suboptimal visual outcome. The incidence of IOL exchange has not been consistently estimated. Such information is invaluable when counseling patients prior to cataract surgery. We examined the incidence of, and indications and risk factors for, IOL exchange after cataract surgery. We also assessed visual outcome of eyes that had an IOL exchange. A cohort design was used to estimate the incidence of IOL exchange and a case-control design to identify factors associated with it. All phacoemulsification surgeries with IOL (n = 17415 eyes) during 2010-2017 and those that had a subsequent IOL removal or replacement during the same time period were identified (n = 34 eyes). The incidence of IOL exchange was 2 per 1000 surgeries (95% confidence interval [CI] 1 to 3) over 8 years. Eyes that underwent subsequent IOL removal or replacement were compared with eyes that had cataract surgery only (n = 47) across demographic and clinical characteristics. In a binary logistic regression analysis, two factors were significantly associated with IOL exchange/removal: an adverse event during cataract surgery (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 19.45; 95% CI 4.89-77.30, P < 0.001) and a pre-existing ocular comorbidity (aOR 10.70; 95% CI 1.69-67.63, P = 0.021). The effect of gender was marginally significant (P = 0.077). Eyes that underwent IOL exchange or explantation were nearly two and a half times more likely to have a final best-corrected visual acuity of <20/60 compared to those that had cataract surgery alone (adjusted RR 2.60 95% CI, 1.13-6.02; P = 0.025).
Project description:OBJECTIVE:This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the incidence of secondary glaucoma in patients under the age of 2 years who underwent congenital cataract surgery with or without primary intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. METHODS:An electronic literature search was performed in Medline, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases to retrieve studies between January 2011 and November 2018. Patients with congenital cataract who did primary IOL implantation, aphakia, or secondary IOL implantation followed by receiving extraction surgery were included in this study. Relevant studies meeting defined eligibility criteria were selected and reviewed systematically by meta-analysis. Long-term incidences of secondary glaucoma, which developed at least one year after cataract surgery, were considered and discussed as clinical outcomes in each cohort. The pooled data were analyzed according to a random effects model. RESULTS:Eight publications involving 892 eyes were included in the current meta-analysis. In the general population of eyes with congenital cataract, the long-term incidence of secondary glaucoma was lower (P = 0.06) in eyes with primary IOL (9.5%) than in eyes without primary IOL (15.1%), including aphakia and secondary IOL. The pooled risk ratio (RR) favors primary IOL implantation in all patients (RR = 0.63). For bilateral congenital cataract, the incidence was 6.7% in eyes with primary IOL implantation, which is significantly lower than the 16.7% in eyes with aphakia and secondary IOL implantation (P<0.05, RR = 0.44). However, for unilateral congenital cataract surgery, the incidence was very similar in eyes with and without primary IOL (12.4% vs 12.0%, P = 0.61, RR = 0.87). CONCLUSIONS:In patients under 2 years of age, primary IOL implantation for bilateral congenital cataract surgery is associated with a lower risk of secondary glaucoma.
Project description:<h4>Purpose</h4>To describe the differences in treatment costs for infants randomized to contact lens correction versus primary intraocular lens (IOL) implantation after unilateral cataract surgery in the Infant Aphakia Treatment Study (IATS).<h4>Design</h4>Retrospective cost analysis of a prospective, randomized clinical trial based on Georgia Medicaid data and the actual costs of supplies used.<h4>Participants</h4>The IATS is a randomized, multicenter (n=12) clinical trial comparing treatment of aphakia with a primary IOL or contact lens in 114 infants with unilateral congenital cataract.<h4>Intervention</h4>Infants underwent cataract surgery with or without placement of an IOL.<h4>Main outcome measures</h4>The mean cost of cataract surgery and all additional surgeries, examinations, and supplies used up to 12 months of age.<h4>Results</h4>The mean cost of treatment for a unilateral congenital cataract with primary IOL implantation was $14 752 versus $10 726 with contact lens correction. The initial cataract surgery accounted for approximately 50% of the treatment costs for both groups. Contact lens costs accounted for 15% ($1600/patient) in the aphakic group, whereas glasses costs represented only 4% ($535/patient) in the IOL group. The increased costs in the IOL group were primarily due to the higher cost of cataract surgery in this group ($7302 vs. $5357) and the cost of additional operations.<h4>Conclusions</h4>For IATS patients up to 12 months of age, cataract surgery coupled with IOL implantation and spectacle correction was 37.5% (?$4000) more expensive than cataract surgery coupled with contact lens correction.<h4>Financial disclosure(s)</h4>The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.