The Impacts of Face Mask Use on Standard Automated Perimetry Results in Glaucoma Patients

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Quality of Examination in Eye Clinics in the Czech Republic - Questionnaire Study

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to map the behavior of ophthalmologists regarding protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic (coronavirus disease 2019), both during the time of the mandatory restrictive measures and after their relaxation. Another aim was to evaluate the awareness of ophthalmologists in the Czech Republic about the possible impact of nose and mouth protective measures (masks, respirators) on the quality of eye examinations, especially on the results of standard automated perimetry (SAP) and intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

As part of two professional ophthalmological events in the Czech Republic, which took place in 2022, we obtained and evaluated data from the ophthalmologists in attendance using a questionnaire. We evaluated demographic parameters, frequency of use and type of nose and mouth protective equipment and their influence on the quality of ophthalmological examination as well as the awareness of ophthalmologists about their possible influence on the outcome of SAP and IOP measurements.

RESULTS

We obtained data from a total of 212 respondents (148 women, 44 men, in 20 cases gender was not stated). In 91.5% of cases, ophthalmologists agreed that the use of respirators and masks makes ophthalmological examination more difficult. The most common problems were eyepiece fogging (85.8%), examination lens fogging (85.8%), and lens fogging when spectacles correction was prescribed (79.2%). The respondents most often combated these problems either by completely removing the respirator (24.1%) or at least by pulling it under the nose (39.2%). At the time when the measures were relaxed, significantly more men did not use any nose and mouth protection at all during ophthalmological examinations (15.8% of men vs. 4.2% of women; p = 0.032). An alarming finding was the fact that 35.6% of respondents did not know whatsoever whether the nurse was performing a perimetry examination on a patient with a respirator/mask or without protective equipment, i.e. they were not aware whatsoever of the possible formation of artifacts. Only 21.2% of respondents were aware of the possible difficulties of measuring IOP while wearing a respirator, while 59.9% of respondents were not aware of this risk (39.6% had never considered this problem, 20.3% of respondents were convinced that a respirator could not have an effect on the measurement of IOP).

CONCLUSION

The use of nose and mouth protective equipment clearly affects the ophthalmological examination and makes it more difficult. Although ophthalmologists belong to a group at high risk for the possible transmission of infection in the performance of their profession, they often removed nose and mouth protection in an effort to eliminate fogging of eyepieces and examination lenses. The awareness of ophthalmologists regarding the possible influence on the results of SAP and IOP measurement by wearing a respirator was low in our questionnaire survey. It is therefore advisable to discuss this issue more widely and warn doctors about these risks.

Corneal topography and tomography readings with mask wear during the COVID-19 pandemic

PURPOSE

To assess the effect of mask wear on corneal topography and tomography readings.

SETTING

Tertiary ophthalmic center.

DESIGN

Prospective, observational, comparative study.

METHODS

Subjects underwent imaging with the Tomey TMS-4a topographer and the Oculus Pentacam HR tomographer. Imaging was performed without a mask, and then testing was repeated while wearing 3 different masks: Halyard Level 2, Halyard Level 3, and KN95. Measurements during mask wear were compared with measurements without a mask. The Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance grouped test was used to compare mean differences without vs with mask wear on measurements. The Chi-square test was used to compare frequency of differences between different masks and against-the-rule vs with-the-rule astigmatism. The frequencies of clinically significant changes in axis of astigmatism, magnitude of astigmatism, and mean keratometry (K) values were calculated.

RESULTS

52 eyes were included in the study with a mean age of 34.71. Mask wear did not show statistically significant differences in mean topography and tomography measurements compared with without mask wear for all parameters. However, the majority, 53% (83/156) had a >10 degrees and 41% (64/156) had >15 degrees change in axis of astigmatism on topography when wearing a mask compared with no mask wear.

CONCLUSIONS

Mask wear did not result in statistically significant mean changes in K readings on topography and tomography. However, the axis of astigmatism varied >10 degrees in most of the patients. Axis determination should be interpreted with caution regarding refractive surgery and/or toric intraocular lens planning in individuals whose measurements were obtained while wearing a mask.

Patient safety implications of wearing a face mask for prevention in the era of COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and consensus recommendations

In the past, the use of face masks in western countries was essentially limited to occupational health. Now, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, mask-wearing has been recommended as a public health intervention. As potential side effects and some contraindications are emerging, we reviewed the literature to assess the impact of them in daily life on patient safety and to provide appropriate guidelines and recommendations. We performed a systematic review of studies investigating physiological impact, safety, and risk of masks in predefined categories of patients, which have been published in peer-reviewed journals with no time and language restrictions. Given the heterogeneity of studies, results were analyzed thematically. We used PRISMA guidelines to report our findings. Wearing a N95 respirator is more associated with worse side effects than wearing a surgical mask with the following complications: breathing difficulties (reduced FiO₂, SpO₂^, PaO₂ increased ETCO₂, PaCO₂), psychiatric symptoms (panic attacks, anxiety) and skin reactions. These complications are related to the duration of use and/or disease severity. Difficulties in communication is another issue to be considered especially with young children, older person and people with hearing impairments. Even if benefits of wearing face masks exceed the discomfort, it is recommended to take an "air break" after 1-2 h consecutively of mask-wearing. However, well-designed prospective studies are needed. The COVID-19 pandemic could represent a unique opportunity for collecting large amount of real-world data.

The effect of COVID-19 pandemic and wearing face masks on ophthalmology practice: What is known so far? A narrative review

Face masks, along with other preventive measures, can help slow the spread of COVID-19. Despite the positive effect of the mask in combating the virus, it has some negative effects on the human body that must be followed up on and reduced. In this study, we discuss the impact of wearing face masks on the eye and the common issues associated with using them. The literature search was conducted using electronic databases such as PubMed and Google Scholar. Only articles published in English were included. A total of 39 relevant articles were deemed eligible. After the duplicate articles were removed, the titles and abstracts of 20 papers underwent full-text screening. The review comprised both prospective and retrospective investigations, case reports, and a series of reporting ocular symptoms following the use of face masks. The COVID-19 pandemic affected ophthalmology practices in managing patients. New factors must be considered, especially when dealing with anti-VEGF injections, such as the risk of endophthalmitis, tests and symptoms of patients with glaucoma, and the emerging symptoms associated with the COVID-19 vaccination. The use of face masks and breathing aids seemed to influence the tear film.

Remote Video Monitoring of Simultaneous Visual Field Testing

PRCIS

In this prospective interventional case series that included 474 patients, there were no significant differences in visual field (VF) parameters between fields from patients tested one-at-a-time and simultaneously, except for fixation losses.

PURPOSE

To test for differences in reliability and performance parameters of patients taking VF tests while using a remote patient monitoring system to supervise 1 or 2 test sessions simultaneously.

METHODS

In a prospective interventional case series, 861 eyes of 474 consecutive patients undergoing automated perimetry during a 6-month period were monitored during the test using an audio/video-enabled remote monitoring system. Two patients were simultaneously tested (simultaneous test) by a single technician if they were ready for testing at the same time. Patients were otherwise tested individually (single test). Performance and reliability parameters including false negatives, false positives, fixation losses, mean deviation, pattern standard deviation, VF index, and test duration were compared between patients undergoing simultaneous tests and single tests. Patients undergoing remotely monitored testing, for whom a prior VF could be found, had performance and reliability parameters compared with those prior tests. VFs were analyzed separately for 2 test strategies: SITA Standard 24-2 and SITA Faster 24-2C.

RESULTS

No significant parameter differences were observed among SITA Standard 24-2 VFs between single and simultaneous tests, except for fixation losses (single: 16.8±19.7%, simultaneous: 22.5±25.0%, P=0.01). Similarly, there were no significant differences observed among SITA Faster 24-2C tests. Paired analyses comparing remotely monitored VFs with prior traditionally monitored VFs showed no significant differences for any parameters, except for fewer fixation losses with remote monitoring (traditional: 23.6±27.5%, remote 17.7±20.8%, P=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Remote patient monitoring of VF testing enabled technicians to supervise testing of 2 patients simultaneously with preserved performance and reliability.

OCT-Angiography Face Mask-Associated Artifacts During the COVID-19 Pandemic

PRCIS

Face mask wearing has no significant effects on artifacts or vessel density measurements in optic nerve head (ONH) and macular optical coherence tomography-angiography (OCT-A) scans.

PURPOSE

The aim was to assess the difference in area of artifacts observed in optical OCT-A scans with and without face mask wear and to verify if mask wear interferes with OCT-A vessel density measurements.

SUBJECTS AND CONTROLS

A total of 64 eyes of 10 healthy subjects, 4 ocular hypertensive, 8 glaucoma suspects, and 17 glaucoma patients were included.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

High-density ONH and macula OCT-A scans were obtained in patients with and without surgical masks. Seven different artifacts (motion, decentration, defocus, shadow, segmentation failure, blink, and Z-offset) were quantitatively evaluated by 2 trained graders. The changes in the area (% of scan area) of artifacts, without and with mask wearing, and differences of vessel density were evaluated.

RESULTS

Trends of increasing motion artifact area for the ONH scans [4.23 (-0.52, 8.98) %, P=0.08] and defocus artifact area for the macular scans [1.06 (-0.14, 2.26) %, P=0.08] were found with face mask wear. However, there were no significant differences in the mean % area of any artifacts (P>0.05 for all). Further, the estimated mean difference in vessel density in images acquired without and with masks was not significant for any type of artifact.

CONCLUSION

Face mask wearing had no significant effect on area of artifacts or vessel density measurements. OCT-A vessel density measurements can be acquired reliably with face mask wear during the pandemic.

The Impact of Tape Sealing Face Masks on Visual Field Scores in the Era of COVID-19: A Randomized Cross-over Study

PRECIS

Tape sealing of the face mask can prevent fogging artifacts of visual field testing. Here, we demonstrate that tape sealing can improve visual field scores even when fogging artifacts are not obvious.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to demonstrate that visual field scores improve when the face masks are taped to prevent fogging artifacts.

METHODS

A Single-center, randomized 2×2 cross-over study. Twenty-six visual fields of 13 patients of the glaucoma outpatient clinic were included. Patients were randomized in either sequence 1 (Octopus visual field examination without tape sealing, followed by examination with tape sealing) or sequence 2 (examination with, followed by without tape sealing).

RESULTS

The results for mean defect and square root of loss variance differ significantly in the examination with and without tape sealing [mean difference (without-with) 0.39 dB, 95% confidence interval: 0.07-0.70 dB, P=0.018 and 0.49 dB, 95% confidence interval: 0.19-0.79 dB, P=0.003, respectively]. There was no sequence effect (P=0.967) for mean defect nor the square root of loss variance (P=0.779). A significant effect for period (P=0.023) for mean defect was yielded.

CONCLUSION

Tape sealing of face masks during visual field testing prevented fogging artifacts and improved visual field scores even when fogging artifacts were not obvious and should be considered in clinical practice.

Ophthalmic Outpatient and Inpatient Care Under Pandemic Conditions: Hygiene, Triage and New Challenges

BACKGROUND

The progression of the COVID-19 pandemic has caused significant changes in the environment for outpatient and inpatient care in ophthalmology, with limitations on access to medical care but also new observations and challenges. We now describe major developments in recent months and provide an outlook on the expected consequences.

METHODS

PubMed literature search, clinical survey.

RESULTS

To date, the course of the COVID-19 pandemic has been characterised by several new but overall rare ocular manifestations, the ophthalmological shared management of COVID-19 patients on intensive care units, and a significant decrease in case numbers, associated with an increase in case severity and relative proportion of emergencies, as a result of delayed presentation of patients and reduced treatment adherence. With the introduction of hygiene measures and infection control procedures, ophthalmic patient care was maintained - including emergencies and urgent treatments. Due to the extensive postponement of elective surgeries, scarce therapeutic and health care professional resources, and the prioritisation of critically ill patients from other specialties, there is a reasonable likelihood that urgent treatments will be delayed as infection rates rise.

CONCLUSION

Outpatient and inpatient care in ophthalmology during the COVID-19 pandemic is primarily accompanied by additional organisational or medical challenges and a decline in case volume. Although to date emergency and urgent ophthalmic treatments have been maintained, long-term persistence of pandemic conditions will require additional strategies to provide continuation of ophthalmic care at the required level.