We have located links that may give you full text access.
Opinions on corrective refractive surgery.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate public perception that ophthalmologists are hesitant to undergo refractive surgery by determining the personal opinions of ophthalmologists on different surgical options.
DESIGN: Prospective cross-sectional survey.
PARTICIPANTS: Members of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery electronic mailing list.
METHODS: An online survey administered from July to August 2014.
RESULTS: There were 396 (5.7%) respondents: 204 (51.5%) would undergo laser refractive surgery (LRS) and 192 (48.5%) would not. Of the 228 (57.6%) with refractive error, 121 (53.1%) would have LRS, with 83 (36.4%) already having had the procedure done. Top reasons against LRS include existing contraindications, worry about intolerable side effects, and worry about complications. 179 (45.3%) would undergo lenticular refractive surgery (lenRS), with 22 (12.3%) having already had this done. Among those who said yes, most preferred a monofocal intraocular lens (IOL; 59 [33.0%]), whereas those who said no thought Toric IOLs to be superior (82 [38.0%]). 184 (46.6%) would undergo femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS); the main reason against FLACS was concern regarding efficacy, followed by safety. Pearson χ2 analysis found that younger age and higher number of LRS procedures performed were associated with increased willingness to undergo LRS. Furthermore, willingness to undergo LRS was positively correlated with willingness to undergo lenRS.
CONCLUSIONS: Ophthalmologists indeed are willing to undergo corrective refractive procedures. There is an approximately 50-50 divide on whether or not they would undergo LRS. Slightly less than half of ophthalmologists would personally undergo lenticular surgery, which includes cataract refractive surgery and FLACS.
DESIGN: Prospective cross-sectional survey.
PARTICIPANTS: Members of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery electronic mailing list.
METHODS: An online survey administered from July to August 2014.
RESULTS: There were 396 (5.7%) respondents: 204 (51.5%) would undergo laser refractive surgery (LRS) and 192 (48.5%) would not. Of the 228 (57.6%) with refractive error, 121 (53.1%) would have LRS, with 83 (36.4%) already having had the procedure done. Top reasons against LRS include existing contraindications, worry about intolerable side effects, and worry about complications. 179 (45.3%) would undergo lenticular refractive surgery (lenRS), with 22 (12.3%) having already had this done. Among those who said yes, most preferred a monofocal intraocular lens (IOL; 59 [33.0%]), whereas those who said no thought Toric IOLs to be superior (82 [38.0%]). 184 (46.6%) would undergo femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS); the main reason against FLACS was concern regarding efficacy, followed by safety. Pearson χ2 analysis found that younger age and higher number of LRS procedures performed were associated with increased willingness to undergo LRS. Furthermore, willingness to undergo LRS was positively correlated with willingness to undergo lenRS.
CONCLUSIONS: Ophthalmologists indeed are willing to undergo corrective refractive procedures. There is an approximately 50-50 divide on whether or not they would undergo LRS. Slightly less than half of ophthalmologists would personally undergo lenticular surgery, which includes cataract refractive surgery and FLACS.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app