Wills Eye Hospital, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, U.S.A.
Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 May/Jun;35(3):281-285. doi: 10.1097/IOP.0000000000001233.
To compare baseline characteristics and visual acuity outcomes in patients treated with prosthetic replacement of the ocular surface ecosystem (PROSE) versus other standard-of-care (SOC) treatments for postsurgical lagophthalmos and exposure keratopathy.
An institutional review board-approved, retrospective cohort study of 45 consecutive patients (53 eyes) with postsurgical lagophthalmos and exposure keratopathy following oculoplastic or skull base surgeries treated between August 2011 and August 2017 was performed. Patients treated with PROSE (22 patients, 27 eyes) were identified by referrals made to the PROSE treatment program at Weill Cornell Medical College. Patients treated with SOC treatments (23 patients, 26 eyes) were identified by International Classification of Diseases-9 and International Classification of Diseases-10 search of billing records. SOC treatments included ocular surface lubrication (artificial tears and/or punctal plugs), tape tarsorrhaphy and/or moisture chamber, or surgical correction. The primary outcome measure was best-corrected visual acuity converted to logMAR at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Secondary outcome measures were subjective patient reports of improvement in vision and comfort, as well as presence of punctate epithelial erosions and/or corneal haze on slit-lamp examination before and after treatment.
Average age for all patients was 52 ± 22 years (range: 7-87). Twenty-eight (62%) of total patients were male. Baseline corrected logMAR visual acuity was 0.58 ± 0.40 (20/76) for PROSE and 0.27 ± 0.39 (20/37) for SOC cohorts (p < 0.001). Mean number of failed prior treatments was 8.3 ± 3 for PROSE and 2.1 ± 2 for SOC (p < 0.0001). Mean difference in logMAR visual acuity for PROSE versus SOC, respectively, from baseline to 1 month was 0.33 ± 0.26 (3-line improvement) versus 0.01 ± 0.17 (no line improvement; p < 0.0001), to 3 months was 0.31 ± 0.23 (3-line improvement) versus 0.08 ± 0.30 (4-letter improvement; p = 0.0004), to 6 months was 0.31 ± 0.28 (3-line improvement) versus 0.10 ± 0.36 (1-line improvement; p = 0.02), and to 12 months was 0.32 ± 0.28 (3-line improvement) versus 0.12 ± 0.34 (1-line improvement; p = 0.01).
Patients with postsurgical lagophthalmos and exposure keratopathy treated with PROSE are more likely to have failed a higher number of treatments and have worse initial best-corrected visual acuities than those treated with SOC. Prosthetic replacement of the ocular surface ecosystem causes rapid and substantial visual improvement within 1 month of use compared with SOC, with little change beyond this time and sustained best-corrected visual acuity at 3, 6, and 12 months after treatment.
比较用于治疗术后睑裂闭合不全和暴露性角膜病变的眼表生态系统假体替代(PROSE)与其他标准治疗(SOC)的基线特征和视力结果。
对 2011 年 8 月至 2017 年 8 月期间接受眼整形或颅底手术的患者进行了一项机构审查委员会批准的回顾性队列研究,共纳入 45 例(53 只眼)术后睑裂闭合不全和暴露性角膜病变患者。通过向威尔康奈尔医学院的 PROSE 治疗项目转介,确定了接受 PROSE(22 例患者,27 只眼)治疗的患者。通过国际疾病分类第 9 版和第 10 版的计费记录搜索,确定了接受 SOC 治疗(23 例患者,26 只眼)的患者。SOC 治疗包括眼表面润滑(人工泪液和/或泪点塞)、胶带睑缘缝合术和/或湿室,或手术矫正。主要观察指标是治疗前和治疗后 1、3、6 和 12 个月时最佳矫正视力的对数最小分辨角数(logMAR)。次要观察指标包括患者对视力和舒适度改善的主观报告,以及治疗前后裂隙灯检查时点状上皮糜烂和/或角膜混浊的存在情况。
所有患者的平均年龄为 52±22 岁(范围:7-87 岁)。28 例(62%)患者为男性。PROSE 组和 SOC 组的基线矫正 logMAR 视力分别为 0.58±0.40(20/76)和 0.27±0.39(20/37)(p<0.001)。PROSE 组和 SOC 组的平均既往治疗失败次数分别为 8.3±3 和 2.1±2(p<0.0001)。从基线到 1 个月,PROSE 与 SOC 相比,logMAR 视力的平均差异分别为 0.33±0.26(3 行改善)与 0.01±0.17(无行改善;p<0.0001),到 3 个月时分别为 0.31±0.23(3 行改善)与 0.08±0.30(4 个字母改善;p=0.0004),到 6 个月时分别为 0.31±0.28(3 行改善)与 0.10±0.36(1 行改善;p=0.02),到 12 个月时分别为 0.32±0.28(3 行改善)与 0.12±0.34(1 行改善;p=0.01)。
与 SOC 相比,接受 PROSE 治疗的术后睑裂闭合不全和暴露性角膜病变患者既往治疗失败次数更多,初始最佳矫正视力更差。与 SOC 相比,眼表生态系统假体置换在使用后 1 个月内即可迅速显著改善视力,此后变化不大,治疗后 3、6 和 12 个月时的最佳矫正视力持续稳定。