4.3 Article

Survey of intravitreal injection techniques and treatment protocols among retina specialists in Canada

出版社

CANADIAN OPHTHAL SOC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcjo.2014.03.009

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To describe intravitreal injection (IVI) techniques and treatment protocols by retina specialists in Canada from August 1, 2012, to October 1, 2012. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Participants: All fellowship-trained retina specialists across Canada, as identified from the Canadian Ophthalmological Society directory and the Canadian Retina and Vitreous Society directory. Methods: An anonymous 28-question survey was sent to 125 retina specialists across Canada by email. Reminder letters were sent by email, mail, and fax as necessary. Results: A total of 75 (63%) retina specialists responded to the survey. Most IVIs were performed in the office. Most surgeons did not use gloves (61%), sterile draping (91%), or surgical mask (71%). Antisepsis was used on conjunctiva by 100% and on periocular skin by 48%. Nearly all specialists used a sterile lid speculum (91%). Common anaesthetics included topical proparacaine or lidocaine drops (90%), topical lidocaine gel (25%), topical pledget (23%), and subconjunctival lidocaine injections (23%). Most (83%) dilate the pupil before IVI. Prophylactic topical antibiotics were used by 43%; 50% of these were started immediately after IVI. Injection location was estimated by visualization by 45%. A majority (63%) inject inferotemporally. Anterior chamber paracentesis was performed routinely by 5%. Optic nerve perfusion was formally assessed by 48%. The most common treatment protocol for age-related macular degeneration was treat and extend. For both diabetic and retinal vein occlusion-related macular edema, the most common protocol was 3 initial monthly injections with PRN follow-up. Conclusions: A wide variety of IVI practice patterns exist in terms of aseptic technique, anaesthetics, prophylactic antibiotics, postinjection monitoring, and treatment protocol.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据