Maastricht 2017 Meeting Highlights Registration Programme Overview Exhibition Virtual Exhibition Hotels Satellite Meetings Visa Letter Application Star Alliance Travel Discount
title

10 - 12 February 2017, MECC Maastricht,The Netherlands.

This Meeting has been awarded 15 CME credits.

Posters

Search Abstracts by author or title
(results will display both Free Papers & Poster)

Efficacy of standard shield vs new disposable eye patch for occlusion during refractive surgery

Poster Details


First Author: E. Chynn USA

Co Author(s): J. Guo                    

Abstract Details

Purpose:

All types of refractive surgery (LASIK, PRK, LASEK) require occlusion of the non-operated eye to prevent cross-fixation during photoablation. Most surgeons use a standard eye shield, which is cheap and reusable, but not specifically designed for occlusion, and which can get dirty with repeated use. Recently, Haag Streit introduced a disposable eye shield specifically designed for occlusion during visual field testing ('MASK-it'). We examined these two methods of occlusion on both patient-centered and surgeon-centered metrics.

Setting:

Park Avenue Laser, a subspecialty refractive practice in New York City.

Methods:

31 patients (62 eyes) undergoing LASEK or epiLASEK at one specialty practice were enrolled. Eyes were randomized in terms of which received the new disposable occluder vs. the standard eye shield. Patients were assessed on a 4-point scale (1=poor, 2=fair, 3=good, 4=excellent) on comfort, perceived cleanliness, fixation. The surgeon was queried on the same 4-point scale on the quality of patient fixation, ease of use, comfort, as well as cleanliness.

Results:

Mean score for patient comfort was not statistically significant between the two groups (3.43 for disposable occluder vs 3.46 for the standard shield, p>0.05). Mean score for cleanliness was 3.50 for occluder vs 3.20 for shield; this difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Mean score for patient fixation from the point of patient’s view favored the shield (3.50) over the occluder (3.30); this difference was statistically significant (p<0.05). Mean score for patient fixation from the point of surgeon’s view was 3.5 for occluder vs 3.7 for shield (p<0.05). Mean score for ease of use was 3.6 for occluder vs 3.3 for shield (p<0.05).

Conclusions:

Patients perceived the occluder as cleaner because it is disposable, so a new one is used each time. The surgeon found the occluder to be easier to use because it is self-adhering, and does not require cleaning between patients. Both patients and the surgeon found the opaque shield provided better fixation than the translucent occluder, which could hypothetically affect ablation centration and refractive outcomes; this should be further studied.

Financial Disclosure:

None

Back to Poster listing