What Are A Macular Pucker and Macular Hole?

10/9/14

What is the macula?
The eye is very much like a camera, taking light from the outside world and converting it into picture information that our brains perceive as vision. The retina is the light sensitive layer in the back of the eye that is very much like the film in that camera. The central retina, also known as the macula, is essential for crisp, high definition vision. Conditions that damage or distort the macula can therefore result in blurred or distorted vision. Two common conditions that affect the macula are macular puckers and macular holes.

What is a macular pucker or macular hole?
A macular pucker is a thin layer of scar tissue that forms on top of the retina. The amount of scar tissue can range from mild to severe. Mild macular puckers may be barely noticeable during an eye exam and resemble a fine layer of cellophane resting on the macula. More severe macular puckers can cause wrinkling or distortion of the macula. In contrast to a macular pucker, a macular hole is a small gap that extends through the entire thickness of the macula.

What are the symptoms of a macular pucker or a macular hole?
At first, a macular pucker may lead to mild blurring of the central vision. Because the problem involves the back of the eye, glasses will not completely restore vision. More severe macular puckers may result in wavy or distorted vision. For instance, objects that normally appear straight, such as venetian blinds or a printed line of text, might appear to have a dip or bend in the center. Small macular holes can cause similar symptoms of blurring or distortion. Larger macular holes often result in a central blind spot. This can also result in straight lines appearing broken or having a piece missing in the middle. Patients with a macular pucker or hole do not normally experience difficulty with peripheral vision.

What can cause a macular pucker or macular hole?
Recall that a macular pucker is a scar tissue. Anything that causes scar tissue, such as trauma or inflammation in the eye, can result in scar tissue and hence a macular pucker. Certain diseases that affect the retinal blood vessels such as diabetes can also cause a macular pucker to form. However, one of the most common causes of macular pucker is simple aging of structures within the eye. As the eye ages, the clear jelly that fills it, called the vitreous gel, shrinks. When enough shrinkage occurs, the vitreous gel detaches from its normal position adjacent to the retina. This process of vitreous detachment can cause microscopic damage or inflammation leading to macular pucker formation. In some cases, the vitreous gel does not detach cleanly from the retina. Instead it can put traction on the macula, pulling its delicate structures apart in the center, resulting in a macular hole.

How are macular puckers and macular holes diagnosed?
A simple examination from an ophthalmologist or retina specialist is often enough to diagnose a macular pucker or hole. However, additional testing is often useful in diagnosing subtle cases or monitoring eyes for changes. An optical coherence tomography (OCT) scan is a specialized photograph that allows your physician to look for microscopic changes in the contour of the macula. The following figures show an OCT of a normal macula, a macular hole, and a macular pucker. Note that the normal macula has a central dip known as the fovea, shown in Figure 1. In Figure 2, the dip is replaced by a gap which is a macular hole. Finally, Figure 3 shows a macular pucker where the dip is no longer visible. This is because the macular pucker, seen as a thin white line is distorting the normal shape of the macula.

Normal - Macular Pucker and Macular Hole — **Figure 1: Normal Macula**

Hole - Macular Pucker and Macular Hole — **Figure 2: Macular Hole**

Pucker - Macular Pucker and Macular Hole — **Figure 3: Macular Pucker**

What treatments are available for macular puckers and macular holes?
Macular puckers can be quite mild. For mild cases in patients with minimal symptoms, periodic monitoring may be all that is required. When blurred vision due to a macular pucker begins to affect activities such as driving or reading, treatment in the form of surgery can be considered. Surgery for a macular pucker is known as a vitrectomy. Vitrectomy surgery is usually done under local anesthesia and as an outpatient procedure. During the surgery, fine instruments are used to remove the scar tissue from the surface of the macula. After surgery, patients usually experience an improvement in the blurring and distortion as the eye recovers gradually over a period of months. Some residual waviness can be normal. Vitrectomy is generally very safe although there is a chance of increased cataract growth and a small risk of infection or retinal detachment.

For patients with small macular holes, close monitoring can also be an option since some macular holes can close on their own. For larger holes, there are two options. In select cases where the vitreous gel is actively pulling on the macula, an injection of medication into the eye may cause the gel to release cleanly, allowing the hole to close. In other cases, vitrectomy is recommended. During the surgery, any pulling on the macula is relieved and a gas bubble is placed in the eye to help the hole close. After surgery, patients are asked to look down for a several days to allow the bubble to float up against the hole. Once the body absorbs the bubble, vision is usually significantly improved.
In summary, both macular puckers and holes are common causes of blurry or distorted central vision. If treatment or surgery by a retina specialist is needed, the results are generally quite good and lead to significant restoration of vision.

David Liao, MD, PhD
Retina-Vitreous Medical Group

Our Thanks to Guest Bloggers Continues

10/7/14

More Amazing Guest Bloggers

Last week I took the opportunity to thank our very first guest bloggers for helping us launch the Discovery Eye Foundation Blog. We are pleased that so many people appreciate the wide range of eye-related information from eye care professionals, as well as the stories from people that live with eye disease on a daily basis.

Here is a round-up of guest bloggers since June 2014 that shared their time, experience and/or expertise to provide you with the best eye-related information.

Sumit “Sam“ Garg, MD – what you should know about cataracts

Randall V. Wong, MD – floaters, causes and treatments

Roy Kennedy – his personal experiences with the miniature telescope implant

Sandra Young, OD – the importance of getting vitamins and minerals from your food and not just supplements

Jeanette Hasseman – living with keratoconus

Greg Shane – theater for the blind

Caitlin Hernandez – blind actress and playwright

Jullia A. Rosdahl, MD, PhD – lasers for glaucoma and genetics and glaucoma

Maureen A. Duffy, CVRT – ways to reduce harmful effects of sun glare

Kooshay Malek – what is it like to lose your vision and being a blind therapist

Jeffrey J. Walline, OD PhD – children and contact lenses

Robert Mahoney – choosing a home care agency

Robert W. Lingua, MD – nystagmus in children

Buddy Russell, FCLSA, COMT – common pediatric eye diseases, treatment options for children and pediatric contact lenses

NIH (National Institute of Health) – telemedicine for ROP diagnosis

Harriet A. Hall, MD – evaluating online treatment claims

Patty Gadjewski – the life-changing effects of a telescopic implant

Michael A. Ward, MMSc, FAAO – proper contact lens care and wearing contacts and using cosmetics

Susan DeRemer, CFRE
Vice President of Development
Discovery Eye Foundation

Coffee and Glaucoma: “1-2 cups of coffee is probably fine, but…”

10/2/14

The Relationship Of Coffee And Glaucoma

Research shows that drinking caffeinated beverages, especially coffee, causes eye pressure to go up, even just one cup of coffee. The effect is highest in glaucoma patients and people at risk for glaucoma. However, eye pressure goes up only a small amount, so it is probably not a significant risk.

In some people, though, too much coffee may be causing damage. In people at risk for exfoliation glaucoma (a type of open angle glaucoma where some flake-like deposits are seen on the lens of the eye), drinking three or more cups of caffeinated coffee was associated with an increased risk of developing exfoliation glaucoma. The effect was strongest in women with a family history of glaucoma. This study doesn’t show that coffee causes glaucoma, but does suggest that drinking three or more cups of caffeinated coffee might not be good for your eyes.

One group of scientists applied caffeine eye drops directly on to healthy eyes, and they did not see any increase in eye pressure. This suggests that caffeine doesn’t appear to have a direct effect.

How can you best protect your eyes? Consider going decaffeinated or limit your caffeine consumption. If you are at higher risk for glaucoma or have been diagnosed, be sure to have regular comprehensive dilated eye exams, use medications as directed and see your eye care provider as scheduled.
For more information about glaucoma, visit www.nei.nih.gov/glaucoma.

References
The effect of caffeine on intraocular pressure: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Li M, Wang M, Guo W, Wang J, Sun X. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2011. 249(3):435-42.

Effect of caffeine on the intraocular pressure in patients with primary open angle glaucoma. Chandra P, Gaur A, Varma S. Clin Ophthalmol 2011. 5:1623-9.

The relationship between caffeine and coffee consumption and exfoliation glaucoma or glaucoma suspect: a prospective study in two cohorts. Pasquale LR, Wiggs JL, Willett WC, Kang JH. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012. 53(10):6427-33.

Effects of caffeinated coffee consumption on intraocular pressure, ocular perfusion pressure, and ocular pulse amplitude: a randomized controlled trial. Jiwani AZ, Rhee DJ, Brauner SC, et al. Eye 2012 26(8):1122-30.

Jullia A. Rosdahl, MD, PhD
National Eye Health Education Program Glaucoma Subcommittee
Duke Eye Center, Duke University

Genetics and Glaucoma: Why don’t we have a genetic test for glaucoma?

9/25/14

We have known for a long time that there is a genetic component to glaucoma, since having a family history of glaucoma is one of the most important risk factors for developing the disease. Glaucoma is actually a group of diseases, including some starting at birth or in childhood, as well as the more common types that happen in adults, such as primary open angle glaucoma.

In some of the glaucomas of childhood, scientists can trace the cause to a single gene. For example, mutations in the gene for myocillin can cause juvenile-onset open angle glaucoma. And there are genetic tests available for some of these genes. These genetic tests, however, are helpful only for a subset of glaucoma patients. For most glaucoma patients, these tests don’t give us the answers we need.

In the types of glaucoma that happen in adults, both environmental factors and genetic factors contribute to whether or not someone develops the disease. This complex interplay of factors makes testing only one gene or a handful of genes not as helpful. For diseases like adult-onset open angle glaucoma, instead of having just one gene that is mutated and causing the disease, there are many genes involved. All these genes contain tiny differences, some potentially helpful and some potentially harmful. It is an individual’s mix of genes combined with the lifetime of complex environmental exposures, that determines whether he or she will get the disease. In the future, genetic tests that incorporate this group of genes will help doctors, patients, and families better understand their susceptibilities, and hopefully lead to prevention of vision loss from glaucoma.

Genetic testing has the potential to offer a lot of benefits, but is not without risk and unintended consequences. Genetic counselors are trained to help patients, families, and doctors navigate these areas.

For more information about glaucoma, visit www.nei.nih.gov/glaucoma.

References:
Genetics of primary glaucoma. AO Khan. Current Opinion in Ophthalmology. 2011. 22(5):347-55

Jullia A. Rosdahl, MD, PhD
National Eye Health Education Program Glaucoma Subcommittee
Duke Eye Center, Duke University

Lens Care If You Wear Contact Lenses and Use Cosmetics

9/23/14

In a continuation from his article on Proper Contact Lens Care, Mr. Ward, Director of the Emory Contact Lens Service, also offers tips if you wear contact lenses and use cosmetics. Several of these pointers apply even if you don’t wear contact lenses, but want to protect your eyes.

The Bullet List of Contact Lens Care For Users Of Eye Area Cosmetics

If possible look for eye makeup specifically labeled for use by contact lens wearers; use premium products.

Apply eye area cosmetics after inserting contact lenses (this will help prevent cosmetic contamination of lens surfaces from handling of cosmetics).

Remove lenses before removing makeup.

Remove makeup daily with mild soap and water; do not use oil or petroleum based make up removers; specifically, avoid moisturizing bar soap and an eye makeup remover that contains mineral oil and cocoa butter.

Choose water based makeup; avoid any oil based, or ‘waterproof’ eye area products (oils will travel across the skin and contaminate the tear film).

Avoid ‘lash-extending’ mascaras with artificial fibers, and apply mascara only to the end of lashes; do not apply mascara to the base of the eyelash or on the eyelid margin.

Do not apply oil-based moisturizers on the eyelids (oils can spread on the skin).

Do not apply any makeup to the eyelid margin (shelf), between the eyelashes and the eyeball.

Apply face powders sparingly; use pressed powder instead of loose powder; try to stay away from the eye area as much as possible; avoid frosted.

Choose liquid or gel eye shadows rather than powders.

Use caution with hair styling sprays. If possible, spray aerosols with eyes closed and step back out of the mist before opening the eyes. These gel/wax/lacquer type sprays can significantly coat your contact lenses.

Replace eye makeup at least every three months; do not share cosmetics.

And, please note that an automobile’s rear view mirror is not intended for makeup application while driving.

Michael A. Ward, MMSc, FAAO
Director, Emory Contact Lens Service
Emory University School of Medicine

Proper Contact Lens Care Provides Best Vision, Comfort and Ocular Health

9/18/14

Proper contact lens care is essential for the best contact lens wearing experience. Mr. Ward, Director of the Emory Contact Lens Service has shared some valuable information about taking care of your contact lens in the article below. On Tuesday join us for additional tips for people who wear contact lenses and wear cosmetics.

Contact lenses provide alternatives to spectacles, and contact lens wearers report better peripheral vision, depth perception and overall vision quality. Contact lenses can correct near-sightedness, far-sightedness, astigmatism and even correct the need for reading glasses. They are also used to manage some ocular surface diseases.

Contact lenses fall into two basic material types: soft contact lenses (SCL) and rigid gas-permeable (GP) lenses. Soft lenses account for the great majority of the contact lens market. GP lenses require more precise fitting and are often used as specialty devices to correct high prescriptions and/or to manage various ocular disorders and may require longer lens-adaptation time. Regardless of lens type, careful attention to lens care instructions can provide good vision and life-long lens wearing comfort.
Proper lens care depends on the lens type, wearing schedule and other factors. Single-use or daily-disposable soft lenses are prescribed to be worn once and discarded. This is theoretically the safest lens wearing modality in that no lens cleaning, lens care or storage case is required for this modality. Other daily wear soft lenses may be replaced every 2 weeks, monthly or by other schedule. Any and all lenses that are removed each day must be cleaned and disinfected prior to their reuse. Your eye care practitioner should provide specific instructions relative to your lens wear and care needs. General lens care instructions and Dos and Don’ts are bullet-listed below.

A word of caution –
Contact lens wear is quite safe as long as proper lens and storage case care are followed. However, improper lens wear and care can put the lens wearer at risk for serious consequences. Sight-threatening microbial keratitis (corneal ulcer) is the most significant adverse event associated with contact lens wear and is largely preventable. The contact lens storage case is the most likely potential reservoir for contact lens related ocular infections. Therefore, lens storage case care should be high on the list of important lens wearing instructions. Contact lens cases are not meant to be family heirlooms; cases should be replaced regularly, at least every 1-3 months.

The Bullet List of Contact Lens Care Recommendations

Hand washing: Always wash your hands before handling contact lenses. Use mild, basic soap and avoid antibacterial, deodorant, fragranced or moisturizing liquid soaps (many liquid soaps have moisturizers that can contaminate your contacts from handling).
Cleaning, rinsing, and disinfecting: Digital cleaning (rubbing the lens with your finger in your palm) removes dirt and debris and prepares the lens surfaces for disinfection. Rub & rinse thoroughly, even if the product is labeled “No Rub”. Lens storage solutions contain chemicals that inhibit or kill potentially dangerous microorganisms while the lenses are soaked overnight.
- Contact lenses should be cleaned when removed from the eye.
- Do not re-use old solution or “top-off” the liquid in the lens storage case. Empty the storage case daily and always use fresh solution.
- Do not use lens care products beyond their expiration dates. Discard opened bottles after 28 days.
- Do not allow the tip of the solution bottle to come in contact with any surface, and keep the bottle tightly closed when not in use.
- Do not transfer contact lens solution into smaller travel-size containers.
Keep your contact lens storage case clean (inside and out).
- All lens storage cases should be emptied, rinsed, wiped, and air-dried between uses.
- Keep the contact lens case clean and replace it regularly, every one to three months.
- Do not use cracked or damaged lens storage cases.
- Take care to remove residual solution from surfaces of lens case and solution bottles.

Other Dos and Don’ts

Do not wear your lenses during water activities (swimming, hot tubs, showering, etc).
Soft contact lenses should not be rinsed with or stored in water. Soft lenses will change size and shape if exposed to water.
Do not put your lenses in your mouth.
Do not use saline solution or re-wetting drops in an attempt to disinfect lenses. Neither is capable of disinfecting contact lenses.
Wear and replace contact lenses according to the prescribed schedule.
Follow the specific contact lens cleaning and storage guidelines from your eye care professional.
Do not change lens care products without first checking with your eye care practitioner.
Spare rigid (GP) lenses should be stored dry for long term storage { clean, rinse, dry}. New or dry-stored GP lenses should be re-cleaned and disinfected prior to lens wear.
Do not store soft lenses in the storage case for an extended period of time. “Spare” soft contact lenses should be new and stored in their original and unopened packaging.
Do not sleep in your contact lenses unless specifically approved to do so by your eye care practitioner.

For information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, see:
www.cdc.gov/contactlenses/
www.cdc.gov/contactlenses/cdc-at-work.html

Michael A. Ward, MMSc, FAAO
Director, Emory Contact Lens Service
Emory University School of Medicine

The Way Eyes Work

9/16/14

Eyes are an amazing part of your body and not just because of what they do helping you see. The are also fascinating be because of the way eyes work. Here are 20 facts about how your eyes function.

1. The pupil dilates 45% when looking at something pleasant.

2. An eye’s lens is quicker than a camera’s.

3. Each eye contains 107 million cells that are light sensitive.

4. The light sensitivity of rod cells is about 1,000 times that of cone cells.

5. While it takes some time for most parts of your body to warm up their full potential, your eyes are always active.

6. Each of your eyes has a small blind spot in the back of the retina where the optic nerve attaches. You don’t notice the hole in your vision because your eyes work together to fill in each other’s blind spot.

7. The human eye can only make smooth motions if it’s actually tracking a moving object.

8. People generally read 25% slower from a computer screen compared to paper.

9. The eyes can process about 36,000 bits of information each hour.

10. Your eye will focus on about 50 things per second.

11. Eyes use about 65% or your brainpower – more than any other part of your body.

12. Images that are sent to your brain are actually backwards and upside down.

13. Your brain has to interpret the signals your eyes send in order for you to see. Optical illusions occur when your eyes and brain can’t agree.

14. Your pupils can change in diameter from 1 to 8 millimeters, about the size of a chickpea.

15. You see with your brain, not your eyes. Our eyes function like a camera, capturing light and sending data back to the brain.

16. We have two eyeballs in order to give us depth perception – comparing two images allows us to determine how far away an object is from us.

17. It is reported that men can read fine print better than women can.

18. The muscles in the eye are 100 times stronger than they need to be to perform their function.

19. Everyone has one eye that is slightly stronger than the other.

20. In the right conditions and lighting, humans can see the light of a candle from 14 miles away.

Susan DeRemer. CFRE
Vice President of Development
Discovery Eye Foundation

Rods and Cones Give Us Color, Detail and Night Vision

9/9/14

Function of Rods and Cones

Rods and cones are a vital part of the eye, helping define what we see. Here’s what you should know.

1. There are three types of color-sensing cones, red, blue and green. If you are color blind one or more of these cells is missing or not working properly.

2. Men have a higher chance of being color blind than women. 1 out of 12 vs. 1 out of 255.

3. The most common type of color blindness is the disability to tell the difference between red and green.

4. The eye can distinguish between 500 shades of gray.

5. A healthy human eye can detect over 10 million different colors.

6. About 2% of women have a rare genetic mutation that gives them an extra retinal cone allowing them to see more than 100 million colors.

7. During a major depression people see less contrast, making colors appear duller.

8. All babies are color blind when they are born. Color vision begins to develop within a week after birth and by 6 months your baby can see every color you can.

9. Your eyes contain 7 million cones which help you see color and detail.

10. The stars and colors you see when you rub your eyes are call phosphenes.

11. There are 120 million light-sensing cells called rods which help you to see better in the dark.

12. Smoking reduces your night vision.

And these are just fun facts about eyes:

The Mayans believed that cross-eyes were attractive and would make efforts to ensure their children became cross-eyed.

Pirates used to wear a gold earring, believing it improved their sight. They also used eye patches to quickly adjust their eyes from above to below deck. When going below deck where it was dark, they flipped up the eye patch to see with the eye that had not be affected by light.

The phrase “it’s all fun and games until someone loses an eye” comes from Ancient Rome, as the only rule for their bloody wrestling matches was “no eye gouging.”

Susan DeRemer, CFRE
Vice President of Development
Discovery Eye Foundation

Evaluating Treatment Claims

9/03/14

The following article on evaluating treatment claims is from the Science-Based Medicine blog is being used with their permission. Since Discovery Eye Foundation provided the inspiration for Dr. Hall, we thought you might enjoy it as well.

I recently wrote about the claim that acupuncture can improve vision in patients with macular degeneration. In response, I received this e-mail:

“At Discovery Eye Foundation we have an education and outreach program for people with age-related macular degeneration, the Macular Degeneration Partnership. We are constantly getting calls from people who have heard of a new “cure” or a way to stop their vision loss. It is always hard to interject reality into the conversation and hear the hope leave their voice, replaced by frustration or despair.”

The e-mail suggested I write an article providing guidelines for consumers to help them evaluate the validity of treatment claims for themselves. On SBM we are constantly stressing the need to apply critical thinking to what you read, and the many pitfalls to be avoided. I’ll try to synthesize some of the principles into a handy list of questions.

What kind of evidence is there?

• If the claim is based on nothing but testimonials, STOP RIGHT THERE. You can forget about it, or at least file it away until there is better evidence. Anecdotes are not evidence; they only serve to suggest promising avenues of research. Science is the only reliable way to determine if a treatment is safe and effective.

• Is the claim based on a gold standard randomized, placebo-controlled, peer-reviewed study or some lesser kind of evidence like case reports? Was it published in a reputable mainstream medical journal? (If you’re not sure how reputable the journal is, you can look it up on tables of “journal impact factors.”

• Keep in mind that half of all studies are wrong. There are many factors that can lead to error. Preliminary or pilot studies that are positive are frequently followed by better, larger studies that are negative. We can never rely on one study without confirmation.

• Was it a meaningful clinical study in humans?

In vitrolab studies and animal studies may not be applicable to humans; if promising, they must be confirmed in good human studies. If it was a human study, did it show meaningful outcomes that made a real difference, like a reduction in heart attacks, or did it just show an improvement in lab values or risk factors?

• Were there 10 subjects or 300? Large studies are more trustworthy than small ones. The fewer dropouts, the better.

• Did it use an appropriate placebo control that subjects really couldn’t distinguish from the active treatment?

• Have other studies found similar results? Are there any studies that show the opposite? You can search PubMed and look for them.

Who is making the claim?

Is it someone who is likely to be biased?
Is it someone who provides the treatment or sells the product?
Is it someone with expert medical knowledge or someone like the schoolteacher who claimed she had invented a cure for the common cold?
Does the person have a good reputation, or a track record of making questionable statements?
Is it someone who quotes or associates with unreliable sources like Mercola.com, the Weston Price Foundation, or the Health Ranger? Quackwatch has a useful list of non-recommended sources of health advice.

Where was the claim reported?

Real medical breakthroughs would be headline news. It’s not likely you would first hear about a cure for diabetes on an afternoon talk show or a Facebook page. Has your doctor heard of it? Are mainstream doctors recommending it? Is it covered on professional medical websites like the American Academy of Pediatrics or disease-focused websites like the American Diabetes Association? Is it sold only through multilevel marketing schemes?

What kind of language is being used?

Is it a sober factual report with caveats, or is it full of hype and buzzwords like “miracle,” “natural,” “known to the ancients,” “quantum,” “amazing,” “revolutionary”? If it really worked, advertising gimmicks wouldn’t be needed to sell it.

Does Gwyneth Paltrow swear it worked for her?

Testimonials can be very passionate but they are notoriously unreliable. Getting better when you use a treatment doesn’t necessarily mean you got better because of the treatment. Symptoms can fluctuate, diseases can resolve without treatment, and placebos can fool people. Perceptions can be wrong (think of optical illusions), the meaning of true perceptions can be misinterpreted, and memories can be inaccurate. Every snake oil salesman has reams of testimonials, and through the centuries there were testimonials galore for bloodletting to balance the humors. People frequently come to believe bogus remedies have worked for them. Barry Beyerstein wrote a classic article about that; it’s essential reading.

Does it make sense?

Is there a plausible mechanism of action? If someone claimed that standing on your head and whistling Dixie would cure diabetes, I think you would be skeptical. If it claims to work by a mechanism incompatible with known scientific principles, the level of evidence would have to be extraordinary for it to outweigh all the evidence those scientific principles are based on. Homeopathy’s claim that water can cure by remembering long-gone molecules, even after the water has been dripped onto a sugar pill and allowed to evaporate, would require extraordinary evidence indeed. If it’s a new antibiotic that is related to an old one, an ordinary level of evidence would suffice.

Is there a double standard?

Are they asking you to accept a “natural” or “alternative” treatment on the basis of the kind of evidence that you wouldn’t want the FDA to accept for allowing marketing of a prescription drug? There is only one science and only one standard of evidence.

Does it sound too good to be true?

Then it probably is too good to be true. Does it promise to cure a hitherto-incurable disease? Does it promise you can eat all you want and still lose weight? Does it promise there are no side effects of any kind? Does it remind you of the spiel of a used car salesman or a TV infomercial? Caveat emptor.

Who disagrees and why?

This is the most important question you can ask. It is rare for 100% of people to agree on anything. If you can find someone who disagrees, you can examine the reasons given for both opinions, and it will usually become obvious which side makes more sense. If you can’t find anyone who disagrees, it might be because it’s too new or because no scientist has taken it seriously enough to bother writing about it. In that case, withhold judgment and keep checking until someone does disagree.

Hope springs eternal, but true hope is better than false hope

If you are a desperate patient, it’s only natural to grasp at any straw of hope; but when the evidence is insufficient, the reasonable approach is to withhold judgment and wait for better evidence. You might think, “If it works, I don’t want to wait” but history teaches us that the great majority of these things don’t pan out. It might not do any harm, but then again it might; there might be adverse effects that haven’t been identified yet, it might raise false hopes only to dash them, and if nothing else it might waste time and money or interfere with getting more appropriate care. When you take an inadequately-tested medicine, you are essentially offering yourself as a guinea pig in a haphazard uncontrolled experiment that doesn’t even keep records. Of course, that’s your privilege; but I hope you would do it with your eyes open, with a realistic understanding of the state of the evidence.

Harriet A. Hall, MD
Retired US Air Force Physician
Editor of Science-Based Medicine Blog
Author of SkepDoc column in Skeptic Magazine

Telemedicine For Diagnosing Retinopathy Of Prematurity

8/28/14

Technology now allows patients access to highly-qualified, specialized care, no matter where they live. This potential is demonstrated in the sight-saving treatments that can be used to help children lead normal healthy lives. The following article is posted with the permission of the National Institute of Health (NIH).

Telemedicine is an effective strategy to screen for the potentially blinding disease known as retinopathy of prematurity, according to a study funded by the National Eye Institute (NEI). The investigators say that the approach, if adopted broadly, could help ease the strain on hospitals with limited access to ophthalmologists and lead to better care for infants in underserved areas of the country. NEI is a part of the National Institutes of Health.

The telemedicine strategy consisted of electronically sending photos of babies’ eyes to a distant image reading center for evaluation. Staff at the image reading center, who were trained to recognize signs of severe ROP, identified whether infants should be referred to an ophthalmologist for evaluation and potential treatment. The study tested how accurately the telemedicine approach reproduced the conclusions of ophthalmologists who examined the babies onsite.

“This study provides validation for a telemedicine approach to ROP screening and could help save thousands of infants from going blind,” said Graham E. Quinn, MD, professor of ophthalmology at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the lead investigator for the study, which is reported today in JAMA Ophthalmology. The study was conducted by the e-ROP Cooperative Group, a collaboration that includes 12 clinics in the United States and one in Canada.

Some degree of ROP appears in more than half of all infants born at 30 weeks pregnancy or younger — a full-term pregnancy is 40 weeks — but only about 5 to 8 percent of cases become severe enough to require treatment. In ROP, blood vessels in the tissue in the back of the eye called the retina begin to grow abnormally, which can lead to scarring and detachment of the retina. Treatment involves destroying the abnormal blood vessels with lasers or freezing them using a technique called cryoablation. Early diagnosis and prompt treatment is the best prevention for vision loss from ROP, which is why the American Academy of Ophthalmology recommends routine screening for all babies who are born at gestational age 30 weeks or younger or who weigh less than 3.3 pounds at birth.

The study evaluated telemedicine for ROP screening during the usual care of 1,257 premature infants who were born, on average, 13 weeks early. About every nine days, each infant underwent screening by an ophthalmologist, who assessed whether referral for treatment was warranted. Those who were referred were designated as having referral-warranted ROP (RW-ROP). Either immediately before or after the exam, a non-physician staff member in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) took images of the infant’s retinas and uploaded them to a secure server at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City. Trained non-physician image readers at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, then downloaded the photos, independently evaluated them following a standard protocol, and reported the presence or absence of RW-ROP.

Through the telemedicine approach, non-physician image readers correctly identified 90 percent of the infants deemed to have RW-ROP based on examination by an ophthalmologist. And they were correct 87 percent of the time when presented with images from infants who lacked RW-ROP. The examining ophthalmologists documented 244 infants with RW-ROP on exam. After referral, 162 infants were treated. Of these, non-physician image readers identified RW-ROP in all but three infants (98 percent). “This is the first large clinical investigation of telemedicine to test the ability of non-physicians to recognize ROP at high risk of causing vision loss,” said Eleanor Schron, Ph.D., group leader of NEI Clinical Applications. “The results suggest that telemedicine could improve detection and treatment of ROP for millions of at-risk babies worldwide who lack immediate in-person access to an ophthalmologist,” she said.

About 450,000 (12 percent) of the 3.9 million babies born each year in the United States are premature. The number of preterm infants who survive has surged in middle income countries in Latin America, Asia, and Eastern Europe. In these parts of the world, rates of childhood blindness from ROP are estimated at 15 to 30 percent — compared to 13 percent in the United States.

One advantage of telemedicine ROP screening is that it can be done more frequently than screening by an ophthalmologist. “It’s much easier to examine the retina when not dealing with a wiggling baby,” said Dr. Quinn. “If a baby is too fussy or otherwise unavailable when the ophthalmologist visits the NICU, the exam may be delayed until the ophthalmologist returns — sometimes up to a week later.”

Weekly ROP screening — or even more frequently for high-risk babies — is a realistic goal for telemedicine and could help catch all cases needing treatment, according to the report. In the study, imaging was restricted to occasions when an ophthalmologist examined the baby. In practice, hospital staff could implement an imaging schedule based on the baby’s weight, age at birth, and other risk factors. “With telemedicine, NICU staff can take photos at the convenience of the baby,” said Dr. Quinn.

Telemedicine for evaluating ROP offers several other advantages.

Telemedicine may help detect RW-ROP earlier. In the study, about 43 percent of advanced ROP cases were identified by telemedicine before they were detected by an ophthalmologist — on average, about 15 days earlier.

Telemedicine could save babies and their families the hardship and hazards of being unnecessarily transferred to larger nurseries with greater resources and more on-site ophthalmologists. “Telemedicine potentially gives every hospital access to excellent ROP screening,” Dr. Quinn said.

Telemedicine might also bring down the costs of routine ROP screening by reducing the demands on ophthalmologists, whose time is better allocated to babies who need their attention and expertise. In a separate analysis, the study found that non-physicians and physicians had similar success in assessing photos for RW-ROP. Three physicians evaluated image sets from a random sample of 200 babies (100 with RW-ROP based on the eye exam findings; 100 without) using the standard grading protocol. On average, the physicians correctly identified about 86 percent of RW-ROP cases; the non-physicians were correct 91 percent of the time. The physicians correctly identified about 57 percent of babies without RW-ROP; non-physicians were correct 73 percent of the time.

The cost of establishing a telemedicine ROP screening program includes acquisition of a special camera for taking pictures of the retina, training of NICU personnel to take and transmit quality photos, and establishment and maintenance of an image reading center. “As we move along this road, advances in imaging and grading of images may streamline the process even more,” Dr. Quinn said.

The e-ROP Cooperative Group includes the following clinical sites and resource centers:

Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Boston Children’s Hospital
Nationwide Children’s Hospital and Ohio State University Hospital, Columbus
Duke University (cost-effectiveness center), Durham, North Carolina
University of Louisville, Kentucky
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
University of Oklahoma (Inoveon ROP Data Center), Oklahoma City
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio
University of Utah, Salt Lake City
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
Hospital of the Foothills Medical Center, Calgary, Alberta
University of Pennsylvania (data coordinating center and image reading center), Philadelphia

For more information about ROP.

Click to view a video about e-ROP.

National Institutes of Health
9000 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, Maryland 20892
301-496-4000,
TTY 301-402-9612

Help DEF Unlock$100,000Matching Gift