Search Results (3)

OBJECTIVES: To describe our experience with a new high-density porous polyethylene orbital implant post-enucleation and evisceration and comment on their performance and safety. METHODS: Patients with an indication of enucleation or evisceration with orbital implantation were included in a prospective study. All patients were implanted with OCULFIT orbital implants (AJL Ophthalmic S.A.) and followed up over 12 months. Anatomical and functional parameters, motility, and aesthetic appearance were evaluated. Patient satisfaction on a scale of 0 (very bad) to 5 (excellent), complications and success rates were reported. RESULTS: Overall, 16 enucleated and 17 eviscerated eyes were analyzed. Orbital implant motility was good for 93.8% and 100% of enucleated and eviscerated patients, respectively. No shortened fornixes were found after external prosthesis placement, and palpebral fissure, orbital volume, and lower eyelid laxity were symmetric with the contralateral eye for the vast majority. The aesthetic appearance was good for 87.5% and 100% of enucleated and eviscerated patients at the last visit with no differences between groups. Excellent satisfaction was reported for 100% and 94.1% of enucleated and eviscerated patients. Anatomical and functional success rates were 78.8% and 81.8%, respectively. No exposure, infection or complications related to surgery were reported during the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: After 1 year of follow-up, OCULFIT orbital implants provide excellent patient satisfaction and performance in terms of motility and symmetry with the contralateral eye after external prosthesis placement with no complications related to the surgical procedure. No differences between enucleated and eviscerated eyes were found, and aesthetic results were remarkable for both groups. Conclusions should be interpreted with caution due to the small sample size. Full article

Floppy Eyelid Syndrome (FES) is an underdiagnosed ocular condition characterized by the abnormal laxity of the upper eyelids, often leading to chronic eye irritation and redness. This review provides an in-depth examination of FES, covering its pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. We discuss the potential etiological factors, including genetic predispositions and associations with ocular and systemic conditions such as obesity, obstructive sleep apnea, keratoconus, and glaucoma. Diagnostic strategies are outlined, emphasizing the importance of thorough clinical examinations and specific tests for an efficacious grading and assessment of FES. Management of FES ranges from conservative medical treatments to surgical interventions for more severe cases and should be driven by a comprehensive and multidisciplinary approach. Herein, we illustrate the practical aspects of diagnosing and managing this condition. This comprehensive review aims to enhance the recognition and treatment of FES, ultimately improving the quality of life for affected patients. Full article

Dry eye disease is an umbrella term that includes a variety of symptoms and signs. A link between diabetes mellitus and dry eye disease exists, but the associated phenotype needs further examination. Thus, our aim was to determine how diabetes mellitus relates to the dry eye disease phenotype. A prospective, cross-sectional study was conducted at the Miami Veteran Affairs Medical Center ophthalmology clinic between October 2013 and September 2019. Participants included a volunteer sample of 366 South Florida veterans with one or more symptoms or signs of dry eye disease [Dry Eye Questionnaire-5 ≥ 6 OR tear break-up time ≤ 5 OR Schirmer’s test score ≤ 5 OR corneal fluorescein staining ≥ 2]. Participants were divided into three groups: (1) individuals without diabetes mellitus (controls); (2) individuals with diabetes mellitus but without end-organ complications; and (3) individuals with diabetes mellitus and end-organ complications. Dry eye metrics were compared across groups. The main outcome measures included ocular symptom questionnaires [e.g., 5-item Dry Eye Questionnaire, Ocular Surface Disease Index, and ocular pain assessment] and clinical parameters obtained from an ocular surface evaluation. A total of 366 individuals were included (mean age 59 ± 6 years; 89% males; 39% White; 11% diabetes mellitus and end-organ complications; 15% diabetes mellitus but without end-organ complications). Individuals with diabetes mellitus and end-organ complications had lower symptom scores on the dry eye disease and pain-specific questionnaires compared to individuals with diabetes mellitus but without end-organ complications and controls (Ocular Surface Disease Index: 42.1 ± 24.5 vs. 38.9 ± 25.1 vs. 23.6 ± 16.2; p < 0.001; numerical rating scale of ocular pain intensity: 4.9 ± 3.2 vs. 4.3 ± 2.7 vs. 3.5 ± 2.7; p = 0.02). Eyelid laxity was also more severe in the group with diabetes mellitus and end-organ complications (0.69 ± 0.64 vs. 0.73 ± 0.72 vs. 1.08 ± 0.77; p = 0.004) compared to the two other groups. The diabetic dry eye disease phenotype is driven by signs more so than by symptoms, with anatomic eyelid abnormalities being more frequent in individuals with diabetes mellitus and end-organ complications. Given this, ocular surface abnormalities in individuals with DM may be missed if screened by symptoms alone. As such, individuals with DM should undergo a slit lamp examination for signs of ocular surface disease, including anatomic abnormalities. Full article