Safety of an Intracameral Fixed Combination for Mydriasis and Intraocular Anaesthesia During Cataract Surgery

Purpose

To compare the safety of a standardized, commercially available intracameral combination of mydriatics and anesthetic (ICMA) with a reference topical mydriatic regimen for cataract surgery.

Patients and Methods

The safety results from two international, randomized, controlled clinical studies were combined to compare ICMA at the beginning of cataract surgery (ICMA group) to the reference topical mydriatic regimen (reference group). Data were collected on ocular and systemic adverse events, corneal and anterior chamber examination, endothelial cell density, retinal thickness and visual acuity. Analysis was performed on a pooled safety set from both studies, preoperatively and up to 1 month postoperatively.

Results

342 patients received ICMA and 318 the reference topical regimen. Ocular adverse events were reported in 17.0% of patients in the ICMA group and 18.6% in the reference group. No difference was shown between groups in endothelial cell density (2208 ± 498 cells/mm2 for ICMA group versus 2241 ± 513 cells/mm2 for the reference group; p=0.547) and retinal thickness (change from baseline less than 50 µm in 94.7% versus 95.0% of patients, respectively) at 1 month postoperatively. At 1-day post-surgery, less patients in the ICMA group had moderate or severe (Grades 2 and 3) superficial punctate corneal staining (3.9% versus 7.0% for the reference group; p=0.064). Postoperatively, some ocular symptoms were also less frequently reported in the ICMA group. Best-corrected visual acuity increased in 96.0% of patients in the ICMA group and 95.8% in the reference group at 1 month.

Conclusion

ICMA injection at the beginning of cataract surgery was demonstrated to be safe and may also provide perioperative and postoperative advantages over the standard topical mydriatic regimen.

Evaluating Cataract Surgical Rate through Smart Partnership between Ministry of Health, Malaysia and Federal Territory Islamic Religious Council

INTRODUCTION

Cataract is the leading cause of blindness. About 90% of cataract blindness occurs in low- and middle-income countries. The prevalence of blindness and low vision in any country depends on the socioeconomic status, the availability of medical and healthcare facilities, and the literacy of the population.

AIM

This paper aims to estimate the cataract surgery rate (CSR) at Pusat Pembedahan Katarak, MAIWP-Hospital Selayang (Cataract Operation Centre), and provide descriptive assessments of the patients who received eye treatments in the center.

METHODS

The data were retrieved from the clinical database from 2013 to 2016. Information on the patient's sociodemographic and clinical and treatment history was collected.

RESULTS

The cataract surgery rate for 2013 was about 27 and increased to 37.3 in 2014. However, it declined to 25 in 2015 before it resumed to 36 in 2016. For female patients who received eye treatments at Pusat Pembedahan Katarak, MAIWP-Hospital Selayang, the rate was higher (53.7%) compared to male patients (46.3%). The mean duration of cataract surgery from 2013 to 2016 was 21.25 ± 11.071 min.

CONCLUSION

The increased cataract surgery rate for MAIWP-HS through smart partnerships for day care cataract surgery proved that better accessibility makes the short- and long-term strategies for the reduction and prevention of blindness in Malaysia possible to achieve.

Policy strategies to reduce waiting times for elective surgery: A scoping review and evidence synthesis

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this evidence-based review is to identify and describe the interventions that have been implemented to reduce waiting times for major elective surgery.

METHODS

Scoping review and presentation of the results according to the SUPPORT tools. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, SciELO, DARE-HTA, and Google Scholar. The inclusion criteria for research design were comprehensive.

RESULTS

We identified 5200 records. After eliminating duplicates and screening by title and abstract, 171 records remained for full-text assessment, of which 12 were ultimately included for this review because they reported specific interventions and 96 records were included for further reference. The included studies show significant variability regarding elective procedures, population, and type of provider, as well as in the characteristics of the interventions and the settings. All the studies had methodological limitations. We graded the certainty of the evidence as very low.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the evidence found for this review, interventions most likely should be multidimensional, with prioritization strategies on the waiting lists to incorporate equity criteria, together with quality management improvements of the surgical pathways and the use of operating rooms, as well as improvements in the planning of the surgical schedule.

Patients' maximum acceptable waiting time for cataract surgery: a comparison at two time-points 7 years apart

PURPOSE

To evaluate the maximum acceptable waiting time (MAWT) of cataract patients and assess the determinants of their perception of MAWT at two time-points 7 years apart.

METHODS

In 2007 (prior to the transformation of our cataract service to a day case unit) and 2014, 500 consecutive patients with cataract were asked to fill in a preoperative questionnaire addressing their MAWT to undergo cataract surgery. The patients' visual impairment (VF-14 score), education and social status were evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean MAWT was 3.2 months in both periods, whereas the actual waiting time decreased significantly by 1.7 months (p < 0.001). Patients who had self-noted visual impairment were nearly four times (p < 0.001) more likely to accept only an MAWT of <3 months in 2007. In both periods, patients with a VF-14 score lower than the mean were more likely to accept a shorter MAWT (p = 0.002 and p = 0.034). Living together with children or having relatives close by was associated with a greater acceptance of an MAWT longer than 3 months (p = 0.002 and p = 0.023).

CONCLUSION

Reducing the actual mean waiting time had no impact on the mean MAWT. Patients with poor tolerance of waiting had greater self-reported difficulty with vision. Social support was also a strong predictor from the patients' perspective. The VF-14 score had a greater impact than clinical visual acuity (VA) testing. Considering the implementation of standards for waiting lists, objective criteria to guarantee a transparent system should be taken into account.

Interventions to reduce waiting times for elective procedures

BACKGROUND

Long waiting times for elective healthcare procedures may cause distress among patients, may have adverse health consequences and may be perceived as inappropriate delivery and planning of health care.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing waiting times for elective care, both diagnostic and therapeutic.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1946-), EMBASE (1947-), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ABI Inform, the Canadian Research Index, the Science, Social Sciences and Humanities Citation Indexes, a series of databases via Proquest: Dissertations & Theses (including UK & Ireland), EconLit, PAIS (Public Affairs International), Political Science Collection, Nursing Collection, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts and Worldwide Political Science Abstracts. We sought related reviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE). We searched trial registries, as well as grey literature sites and reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series (ITS) designs that met EPOC minimum criteria and evaluated the effectiveness of any intervention aimed at reducing waiting times for any type of elective procedure. We considered studies reporting one or more of the following outcomes: number or proportion of participants whose waiting times were above or below a specific time threshold, or participants' mean or median waiting times. Comparators could include any type of active intervention or standard practice.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from, and assessed risk of bias of, each included study, using a standardised form and the EPOC 'Risk of bias' tool. They classified interventions as follows: interventions aimed at (1) rationing and/or prioritising demand, (2) expanding capacity, or (3) restructuring the intake assessment/referral process.For RCTs when available, we reported preintervention and postintervention values of outcome for intervention and control groups, and we calculated the absolute change from baseline or the effect size with 95% confidence interval (CI). We reanalysed ITS studies that had been inappropriately analysed using segmented time-series regression, and obtained estimates for regression coefficients corresponding to two standardised effect sizes: change in level and change in slope.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies met our inclusion criteria: three RCTs and five ITS studies involving a total of 135 general practices/primary care clinics, seven hospitals and one outpatient clinic. The studies were heterogeneous in terms of types of interventions, elective procedures and clinical conditions; this made meta-analysis unfeasible.One ITS study evaluating prioritisation of demand through a system for streamlining elective surgery services reduced the number of semi-urgent participants waiting longer than the recommended time (< 90 days) by 28 participants/mo, while no effects were found for urgent (< 30 days) versus non-urgent participants (< 365 days).Interventions aimed at restructuring the intake assessment/referral process were evaluated in seven studies. Four studies (two RCTs and two ITSs) evaluated open access, or direct booking/referral: One RCT, which showed that open access to laparoscopic sterilisation reduced waiting times, had very high attrition (87%); the other RCT showed that open access to investigative services reduced waiting times (30%) for participants with lower urinary tract syndrome (LUTS) but had no effect on waiting times for participants with microscopic haematuria. In one ITS study, same-day scheduling for paediatric health clinic appointments reduced waiting times (direct reduction of 25.2 days, and thereafter a decrease of 3.03 days per month), while another ITS study showed no effect of a direct booking system on proportions of participants receiving a colposcopy appointment within the recommended time. One RCT and one ITS showed no effect of distant consultancy (instant photography for dermatological conditions and telemedicine for ear nose throat (ENT) conditions) on waiting times; another ITS study showed no effect of a pooled waiting list on the number of participants waiting for uncomplicated spinal surgery.Overall quality of the evidence for all outcomes, assessed using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) tool, ranged from low to very low.We found no studies evaluating interventions to increase capacity or to ration demand.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

As only a handful of low-quality studies are presently available, we cannot draw any firm conclusions about the effectiveness of the evaluated interventions in reducing waiting times. However, interventions involving the provision of more accessible services (open access or direct booking/referral) show some promise.