Cargando…

Preoperative fundoscopy versus optical coherence tomography to detect occult maculopathy during cataract surgery preassessment

PURPOSE: To assess the proportion of maculopathy detectable only on optical coherence tomography (OCT) versus slit lamp indirect ophthalmoscopy (SLIO) during cataract assessment. METHODS: Population: Consecutive patients attending cataract assessments. Data collection: All patients underwent OCT and...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Murphy, George, Owasil, Raisah, Kanavati, Sam, Ashena, Zahra, Nanavaty, Mayank A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8945867/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35332291
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41433-022-02027-0
_version_ 1784674056643018752
author Murphy, George
Owasil, Raisah
Kanavati, Sam
Ashena, Zahra
Nanavaty, Mayank A.
author_facet Murphy, George
Owasil, Raisah
Kanavati, Sam
Ashena, Zahra
Nanavaty, Mayank A.
author_sort Murphy, George
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To assess the proportion of maculopathy detectable only on optical coherence tomography (OCT) versus slit lamp indirect ophthalmoscopy (SLIO) during cataract assessment. METHODS: Population: Consecutive patients attending cataract assessments. Data collection: All patients underwent OCT and SLIO. SLIO findings were recorded before reviewing OCT. Scans were examined to compare with recorded SLIO findings. Primary outcome: analyse the proportion of eyes with maculopathy missed by SLIO. Secondary outcome: to assess the proportion of patients with maculopathy on OCT, the incidence of maculopathy in the fellow eye on OCT and proportion with cataracts too dense to allow SLIO or OCT. RESULTS: Six hundred twenty-six patients were enroled. Eighty (12.8%) had maculopathy detectable only on OCT which included: 26 (4.2%) epiretinal membrane (ERM), 25 (4%) dry age-related macular degeneration (AMD), 19 (3%) vitreomacular traction (VMT), 5 (0.8%) lamellar macular hole (LMH), 2 (0.3%) cystoid macular oedema (CMO) and 1 (0.2%) wet AMD. 166 (26.5%) had maculopathy on OCT, of which only 48 (7.7%) had known history of maculopathy. In fellow eyes, 29 (4.6%) had significant findings and 29 (4.6%) were unable to have SLIO or OCT due to dense cataract. CONCLUSIONS: A quarter of the patients had occult maculopathy. One-tenth of the occult maculopathy were missed without OCT, with ERM, dry AMD, VMT, LMH, CMO and wet AMD being the primary missed diagnosis. Less than 5% had occult maculopathy in fellow eye, and <5% had dense cataracts where neither SLIO nor OCT was not possible.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8945867
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89458672022-03-25 Preoperative fundoscopy versus optical coherence tomography to detect occult maculopathy during cataract surgery preassessment Murphy, George Owasil, Raisah Kanavati, Sam Ashena, Zahra Nanavaty, Mayank A. Eye (Lond) Article PURPOSE: To assess the proportion of maculopathy detectable only on optical coherence tomography (OCT) versus slit lamp indirect ophthalmoscopy (SLIO) during cataract assessment. METHODS: Population: Consecutive patients attending cataract assessments. Data collection: All patients underwent OCT and SLIO. SLIO findings were recorded before reviewing OCT. Scans were examined to compare with recorded SLIO findings. Primary outcome: analyse the proportion of eyes with maculopathy missed by SLIO. Secondary outcome: to assess the proportion of patients with maculopathy on OCT, the incidence of maculopathy in the fellow eye on OCT and proportion with cataracts too dense to allow SLIO or OCT. RESULTS: Six hundred twenty-six patients were enroled. Eighty (12.8%) had maculopathy detectable only on OCT which included: 26 (4.2%) epiretinal membrane (ERM), 25 (4%) dry age-related macular degeneration (AMD), 19 (3%) vitreomacular traction (VMT), 5 (0.8%) lamellar macular hole (LMH), 2 (0.3%) cystoid macular oedema (CMO) and 1 (0.2%) wet AMD. 166 (26.5%) had maculopathy on OCT, of which only 48 (7.7%) had known history of maculopathy. In fellow eyes, 29 (4.6%) had significant findings and 29 (4.6%) were unable to have SLIO or OCT due to dense cataract. CONCLUSIONS: A quarter of the patients had occult maculopathy. One-tenth of the occult maculopathy were missed without OCT, with ERM, dry AMD, VMT, LMH, CMO and wet AMD being the primary missed diagnosis. Less than 5% had occult maculopathy in fellow eye, and <5% had dense cataracts where neither SLIO nor OCT was not possible. Nature Publishing Group UK 2022-03-24 2023-03 /pmc/articles/PMC8945867/ /pubmed/35332291 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41433-022-02027-0 Text en © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Royal College of Ophthalmologists 2022
spellingShingle Article
Murphy, George
Owasil, Raisah
Kanavati, Sam
Ashena, Zahra
Nanavaty, Mayank A.
Preoperative fundoscopy versus optical coherence tomography to detect occult maculopathy during cataract surgery preassessment
title Preoperative fundoscopy versus optical coherence tomography to detect occult maculopathy during cataract surgery preassessment
title_full Preoperative fundoscopy versus optical coherence tomography to detect occult maculopathy during cataract surgery preassessment
title_fullStr Preoperative fundoscopy versus optical coherence tomography to detect occult maculopathy during cataract surgery preassessment
title_full_unstemmed Preoperative fundoscopy versus optical coherence tomography to detect occult maculopathy during cataract surgery preassessment
title_short Preoperative fundoscopy versus optical coherence tomography to detect occult maculopathy during cataract surgery preassessment
title_sort preoperative fundoscopy versus optical coherence tomography to detect occult maculopathy during cataract surgery preassessment
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8945867/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35332291
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41433-022-02027-0
work_keys_str_mv AT murphygeorge preoperativefundoscopyversusopticalcoherencetomographytodetectoccultmaculopathyduringcataractsurgerypreassessment
AT owasilraisah preoperativefundoscopyversusopticalcoherencetomographytodetectoccultmaculopathyduringcataractsurgerypreassessment
AT kanavatisam preoperativefundoscopyversusopticalcoherencetomographytodetectoccultmaculopathyduringcataractsurgerypreassessment
AT ashenazahra preoperativefundoscopyversusopticalcoherencetomographytodetectoccultmaculopathyduringcataractsurgerypreassessment
AT nanavatymayanka preoperativefundoscopyversusopticalcoherencetomographytodetectoccultmaculopathyduringcataractsurgerypreassessment