Tun Hang Yeo1, Siddharthan Ilangovan2, Pearse A Keane3, Carlos Pavesio4, Rupesh Agrawal5,4. 1. National Healthcare Group Eye Institute, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, 308433, Singapore. tunhang.yeo@gmail.com. 2. Raffles Institution, Singapore, Singapore. 3. NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK. 4. Moorfields Eye Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 5. National Healthcare Group Eye Institute, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, 308433, Singapore.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate current practices in anterior chamber (AC) inflammation assessment among uveitis specialists. METHODS: Uveitis specialists were invited to participate in an electronic survey designed to understand their practice in assessing AC inflammation. RESULTS: Sixty-five ophthalmologists participated in the survey. Of them, 69.2 % (n = 45) reported using the current Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature (SUN) guidelines of a 1 × 1-mm slit beam when grading AC cells. Only 38.5 % (n = 5) reported routinely counting the number of cells. In the management of uveitis, 98.5 % (n = 64) valued flare assessment, but 84.6 % (n = 55) did not use laser flare photometry. In total, 36.9 % (n = 24) agreed that laser flare photometry would change their management, while 16.9 % (n = 11) did not see its usefulness. The remaining participants were undecided. CONCLUSION: A number of issues limit the clinical assessment of AC inflammation. Different classifications are still being used despite efforts to standardize practice. While the value of flare is widely recognized, the role of laser flare photometry remains controversial.
PURPOSE: To evaluate current practices in anterior chamber (AC) inflammation assessment among uveitis specialists. METHODS: Uveitis specialists were invited to participate in an electronic survey designed to understand their practice in assessing AC inflammation. RESULTS: Sixty-five ophthalmologists participated in the survey. Of them, 69.2 % (n = 45) reported using the current Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature (SUN) guidelines of a 1 × 1-mm slit beam when grading AC cells. Only 38.5 % (n = 5) reported routinely counting the number of cells. In the management of uveitis, 98.5 % (n = 64) valued flare assessment, but 84.6 % (n = 55) did not use laser flare photometry. In total, 36.9 % (n = 24) agreed that laser flare photometry would change their management, while 16.9 % (n = 11) did not see its usefulness. The remaining participants were undecided. CONCLUSION: A number of issues limit the clinical assessment of AC inflammation. Different classifications are still being used despite efforts to standardize practice. While the value of flare is widely recognized, the role of laser flare photometry remains controversial.
Authors: John G Ladas; Noel C Wheeler; Patrick J Morhun; Steven O Rimmer; Gary N Holland Journal: Surv Ophthalmol Date: 2005 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 6.048