International medical case reports journal · 2021
Effectiveness of the Heads-Up Surgery System for Retinal Surgery in a Patient with Severe Photophobia.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Saito Yuka, Horiguchi Hiroshi, Mizobuchi Kei, Katagiri Satoshi, Gunji Hisato, Nakano Tadashi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The reported features and effectiveness of heads-up surgery (HUS) for ophthalmic surgery include greater resolution, teaching, and significantly reduced endoillumination power.
OBJECTIVE: To report how to care for severe intraoperative photophobia using the HUS system during bilateral rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RD) surgery in a patient with severe photophobia.
CASE REPORT: A man in his 50s, who had been followed up for photophobia and visual impairment underwent five ophthalmic surgeries for bilateral RD. In his early 40s, he had been referred to our hospital because of a complaint of bilateral visual impairment, including severe photophobia, approximately 2 years prior. His decimal best-corrected visual acuities were 0.7 and 0.6 in his right and left eyes, respectively. Optical coherence tomography showed diffuse thinning of the entire retinal layer in the macula of both eyes, which was considered to be a cause of the decrement of visual acuity and photophobia. Twelve years after his first visit, he noticed multiple floaters in his left eye. For RD excluding the macular area, we planned cataract and retinal surgery under retrobulbar anesthesia. However, as we could not continue retinal surgery after cataract surgery due to severe photophobia, we performed general anesthesia (GA) during the second surgery. Seventeen months after the surgery, he underwent the third surgery for RD in his right eye under GA. For RD recurring twice, we performed surgery with the HUS system under retrobulbar anesthesia for the fourth and fifth surgeries, which avoided photophobia due to the significantly reduced light stimulation of the HUS system.
CONCLUSION: Lower light intensity achieved by the HUS system enabled us to eliminate the patient's intraoperative discomfort. Consequently, we could perform the surgery under local anesthesia in this patient with RD who complained of severe photophobia that required GA using a conventional surgical system.
OBJECTIVE: To report how to care for severe intraoperative photophobia using the HUS system during bilateral rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RD) surgery in a patient with severe photophobia.
CASE REPORT: A man in his 50s, who had been followed up for photophobia and visual impairment underwent five ophthalmic surgeries for bilateral RD. In his early 40s, he had been referred to our hospital because of a complaint of bilateral visual impairment, including severe photophobia, approximately 2 years prior. His decimal best-corrected visual acuities were 0.7 and 0.6 in his right and left eyes, respectively. Optical coherence tomography showed diffuse thinning of the entire retinal layer in the macula of both eyes, which was considered to be a cause of the decrement of visual acuity and photophobia. Twelve years after his first visit, he noticed multiple floaters in his left eye. For RD excluding the macular area, we planned cataract and retinal surgery under retrobulbar anesthesia. However, as we could not continue retinal surgery after cataract surgery due to severe photophobia, we performed general anesthesia (GA) during the second surgery. Seventeen months after the surgery, he underwent the third surgery for RD in his right eye under GA. For RD recurring twice, we performed surgery with the HUS system under retrobulbar anesthesia for the fourth and fifth surgeries, which avoided photophobia due to the significantly reduced light stimulation of the HUS system.
CONCLUSION: Lower light intensity achieved by the HUS system enabled us to eliminate the patient's intraoperative discomfort. Consequently, we could perform the surgery under local anesthesia in this patient with RD who complained of severe photophobia that required GA using a conventional surgical system.