Explore the vast range of titles available.

Posterior polar cataracts (PPC) pose a great surgical challenge to ophthalmic surgeons. Main intraoperative surgical concerns are increased risk of posterior capsular rupture (PCR), vitreous loss, and nuclear drop. Traditional assessment of posterior capsule integrity utilizing anterior segment- optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) requires training, and it is a time-consuming process. Recent techniques of posterior capsule assessment need additional software installation, raising the cost of investigation for the patient. This video demonstrates a time-saving method to assess posterior capsular integrity using regular AS-OCT, which can be learnt and practiced easily in outpatient department (OPD). Ultrasound and 20 D lens mounted on posterior segment optical coherence tomography (OCT) are some of the popular methods to assess the posterior capsule. Such techniques need training and are laborious. Our technique used to assess posterior capsule integrity in PPC using AS-OCT is simple, time saving, and can be easily practiced. The technique described requires AS-OCT lens to be mounted on the lens aperture. The console panel is set to scan on scleral mode. AS-OCT is advanced to capture the cornea, anterior capsule, and posterior capsule. Intact posterior capsule is visualized as a continuous well-defined hyper-reflective layer, and any break in the continuity of this hyper-reflective layer suggests posterior capsule dehiscence, which can further be studied based on literature classifications.

In an ageing population, efficiency improvements are required to assure future accessibility of cataract care. We aim to address remaining knowledge gaps by evaluating the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS) versus delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery (DSBCS). We hypothesised that ISBCS is non-inferior to DSBCS, regarding safety and effectiveness, and being superior in cost-effectiveness. We did a multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial, which included participants from ten Dutch hospitals. Eligible participants were 18 years or older, underwent expected uncomplicated surgery, and had no increased risk of endophthalmitis or refractive surprise. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the ISBCS (intervention) group or DSBCS (conventional procedure) group, using a web-based system stratified by centre and axial length. Participants and outcome assessors were not masked to the treatment groups because of the nature of the intervention. The primary outcome was the proportion of second eyes with a target refractive outcome of 1·0 dioptre (D) or less 4 weeks postoperatively, with a non-inferiority margin of –5% for ISBCS versus DSBCS. For the trial-based economic evaluation, the primary endpoint was the incremental societal costs per quality-adjusted life-year. All analyses were done by a modified intention-to-treat principle. Costs were calculated by multiplying volumes of resource use with unit cost prices and converted to 2020 Euros (€) and US$. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03400124, and is now closed for recruitment. Between Sept 4, 2018, and July 10, 2020, a total of 865 patients were randomly assigned to either the ISBCS group (427 [49%] patients; 854 eyes) or DSBCS group (438 [51%] patients; 876 eyes). In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, the proportion of second eyes with a target refraction of 1·0 D or less was 97% (404 of 417 patients) in the ISBCS group versus 98% (407 of 417) in the DSBCS group. The percentage difference was –1% (90% CI –3 to 1; p=0·526), thereby establishing non-inferiority for ISBCS compared with DSBCS. Endophthalmitis was not observed or reported in either group. Adverse events were comparable between groups, with only a significant difference in disturbing anisometropia (p=0·0001). Societal costs were €403 (US$507) lower with ISBCS than with DSBCS. The cost-effectiveness probability of ISBCS versus DSBCS was 100% across the willingness-to-pay range of €2500–80 000 (US$3145–100 629) per quality-adjusted life-year. Our results showed non-inferiority of ISBCS versus DSBCS regarding effectiveness outcomes, comparable safety, and superior cost-effectiveness of ISBCS. National cost savings could amount to €27·4 million (US$34·5 million) annually, advocating for ISBCS if strict inclusion criteria are applied. Research grant from The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) and Dutch Ophthalmological Society.