Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byPaulina Heath Modified over 9 years ago
1
Magraby Eye and Ear Centre - OMAN
2
Difficulties with children and LA Reports of NO2 interference with Laser function Aim – compare propfol/fentanyl and ketamine/midazolam
3
Prospective 30 patients Randomized to 2 groups Age 3 to 12 years Aniso/Amblyopia
4
NBM overnight Clear fluids till 4 hours before LASIK or LASEK
5
Heart rate MABP SaO2 O2 by nasal cannula if SaO2 ≤ 90%
6
Matched for: age weight duration of anesthesia duration of surgery
7
Time to recovery shorter in P/F group Opposite effects on BP and HR P/F group 3 patients needed O2 Post-op agitation and vomiting higher in K/M group Airway obstruction (needing jaw thrust) higher in P/F group
8
Bells phenomenon Nystagmus Overall intra and post-op state No significant difference (used suction ring for fixation)
9
Propofol preferred Shorter acting Lower incidence of dysphoric effects Greater potential for airway compromise.
10
University of L’Aquila, Italy
11
Prospective 18 consecutive patients Mean age 32.4 (range 21 to 52) Accommodative eso (normal AC/A) No suppression 8 – PRK (Group A) 10 – LASIK (Group B)
12
Without correction ET’ 14.4 ∆ (10 to 19) ET 11.6 ∆ (8 to 14) With correction ET’ 5 ∆ (4 to 6) ET 2.4 ∆ (2 to 4) Mean 71.2 sec/arc
13
2 ∆ esophoria – near 1.2 ∆ esophoria – distance Refraction +4.6 D (mean) (range +3.50 to +6.00) Mean BSCVA – 20/20
14
1 Year ET’ 1.2 ∆ esophoria ET – orthophoric 2 Years ET’ 2 ∆ esophoria ET 0.4 ∆
15
Without correction ET’ 13.4 ∆ (8 to 21) ET 11.5 ∆ (6 to 19) With correction ET’ 5.4 ∆ (2 to 8) ET 2.8 ∆ (orthophoria to 6) Mean 81 sec/arc
16
2.5 ∆ esophoria – near 1.1 ∆ esophoria – distance Refraction +6.46 D (mean) (range +5.00 to +8.50) Mean BSCVA – 20/20
17
1 Year ET’ 1.7 ∆ esophoria ET 0.2 ∆ esophoria 2 Years No change
18
Only 1 case of regression Recurrence of ET
19
Good binocular function Good acuity Careful selection of patients ? Timing of surgery
20
Possible application to older children and young adults?????
21
Review by L.Tychsen
22
Corneal surface ablation Phakic IOL Clear Lens Exchange
23
Anisometropia – spectacle non-compliant 2.0 D - hypermetropes 3.0 to 4.0 D - myopes Intolerance of specs or CL Neuro-behavioural disorders
24
Iso-ametropia Spectacle non-compliant Amblyopia approaching 50% Neuro-behavioural disorders Visual autism
25
Other special needs Craniofacial deformities High hyperopia and esotropia Poor spectacle compliance
26
Baseline Repeated examinations EUA Surface ablation +6.0 to -10.0 D ACD ≥ 3.2 mm Phakic IOL Remainder - Clear lens extraction
27
Volatile induction Intravenous anaesthetic EUA LASEK or PTK/PRK BCL and goggles Epithelial healing as in adults Better tolerated
28
Artisan iris enclaved Bilateral sequential – 1 month interval Absorbable sutures Limbal relaxing incisions Arm band restraints
29
Above 20.0 D ACD ≤ 3.2 mm Lensectomy Posterior capsulectomy Anterior vitrectomy Acrylic IOL AL ≥ 29 mm - Prophylactic laser
30
Improvement in UCVA Best with bilateral ametropia Modest with anisometropia
31
Ametropia avg 7.1 D UCVA 20/180 to 20/60 (mean) If glasses worn - BCVA 2-fold improvement
32
Ametropia – mean 15.0 D UCVA 20/3400 to 20/57 (mean) Similar results with CLE
33
90% within 1.5 D of emmetropia Variable improvement in UCVA and BCVA No reported loss of acuity 50% improvement in fusion and stereopsis
34
Low Several years follow up Small numbers
35
260 eyes - 1998 to 2008 Negligible rate of sight-threatening complications LASIK – flap complications LASEK – thicker residual stroma Regression - 1.0 D/year ? Over-correction for myopes
36
No regression Corneal endothelium? Low rate of loss ? Posterior chamber IOLs ? Glaucoma/ Cataract
37
Accomodation Multifocal IOLS? RD risk – 3% long term
38
Substantial benefits for selected patients Need more information/scrutiny/disclosure
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.