TY - JOUR
T1 - Compliance with Protective Lens Wear in Anophthalmic Patients
AU - Neimkin, Michael G.
AU - Custer, Philip L.
N1 - Funding Information:
This research was funded in part by Washington University Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences NIH/NEI Core Grant #P30EY002687. The authors have no other financial or conflicts of interest to disclose.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 The American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Inc.
PY - 2017/2/1
Y1 - 2017/2/1
N2 - Purpose: To evaluate the frequency of protective lens wear by anophthalmic patients and identify factors that influence compliance. Methods: An IRB approved descriptive retrospective chart review of patients undergoing surgery with the senior author (PLC) with an anophthalmic orbit and one remaining sighted eye. Results were tabulated and analyzed using age, indication for procedure, duration of visual symptoms, safety glasses wear, number of postoperative visits, and evidence of new trauma to the remaining eye. All patients underwent counseling on the importance of protective lens wear preoperatively and each subsequent visit. Results: Etiologies for loss of the eye in the 132 study patients included trauma (33.3%), blind painful eye (33.3%), congenital disorders (14.4%), adult-onset malignancy (14.4%), and retinoblastoma (4.5%). At the final visit, protective lenses were worn in the following patterns: full-time (55.3%), frequently (11.4%), occasional (6%), and never (28.8%). The regular use of protective eyewear at last visit was more common in patients wearing glasses at presentation (79.7%), than in those who did not (32.9%; p ≤ 0.001). Increased number of office encounters correlated with more frequent use of protective eyewear (p ≤ 0.01). Patient age (p = 0.95), indication for surgery (p = 0.97), and duration of visual loss (p = 0.85) were not predictive of safety glasses wear. Three patients had evidence of subsequent ocular trauma to the remaining eye, with 2 having resultant decrease in acuity; none of these 3 patients wore safety glasses full-time. Conclusions: A significant number of anopthalmic patients were not wearing protective lenses at presentation. Overall compliance was poor; but repeated education on the importance of safety glasses appears to improve compliance. Educating referring providers and primary care physicians about the importance of early and repeated counseling is vital to increasing compliance.
AB - Purpose: To evaluate the frequency of protective lens wear by anophthalmic patients and identify factors that influence compliance. Methods: An IRB approved descriptive retrospective chart review of patients undergoing surgery with the senior author (PLC) with an anophthalmic orbit and one remaining sighted eye. Results were tabulated and analyzed using age, indication for procedure, duration of visual symptoms, safety glasses wear, number of postoperative visits, and evidence of new trauma to the remaining eye. All patients underwent counseling on the importance of protective lens wear preoperatively and each subsequent visit. Results: Etiologies for loss of the eye in the 132 study patients included trauma (33.3%), blind painful eye (33.3%), congenital disorders (14.4%), adult-onset malignancy (14.4%), and retinoblastoma (4.5%). At the final visit, protective lenses were worn in the following patterns: full-time (55.3%), frequently (11.4%), occasional (6%), and never (28.8%). The regular use of protective eyewear at last visit was more common in patients wearing glasses at presentation (79.7%), than in those who did not (32.9%; p ≤ 0.001). Increased number of office encounters correlated with more frequent use of protective eyewear (p ≤ 0.01). Patient age (p = 0.95), indication for surgery (p = 0.97), and duration of visual loss (p = 0.85) were not predictive of safety glasses wear. Three patients had evidence of subsequent ocular trauma to the remaining eye, with 2 having resultant decrease in acuity; none of these 3 patients wore safety glasses full-time. Conclusions: A significant number of anopthalmic patients were not wearing protective lenses at presentation. Overall compliance was poor; but repeated education on the importance of safety glasses appears to improve compliance. Educating referring providers and primary care physicians about the importance of early and repeated counseling is vital to increasing compliance.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84957818720&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/IOP.0000000000000652
DO - 10.1097/IOP.0000000000000652
M3 - Article
C2 - 26866334
AN - SCOPUS:84957818720
SN - 0740-9303
VL - 33
SP - 61
EP - 64
JO - Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
JF - Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
IS - 1
ER -