PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 233857

Special problems in ophthalmic subspecialties.

J W Bettman
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A study of 276 medicolegal cases disclosed the number in various ophthalmic subspecialties. The medical reasons for filing these claims were usually based upon omission or commission of acts fundamental to good basic ophthalmology, not the omission of sophisticated procedures. Among the lesions were that physicians should plan for the care of emergencies, use few types of drugs, order roentgenograms if suspicions arise, use consultants, stay well within one's level of competence, and document everything.

Explore related subjects

ConsultantsEye DiseasesHumansLegislation, MedicalMalpracticeOphthalmologyPhysician-Patient RelationsSpecializationUnited StatesJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J W Bettman. 1979. Special problems in ophthalmic subspecialties.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0161-6420(79)35402-1

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

UK national survey of enucleation, evisceration and orbital implant trends.

AIM: To evaluate current clinical practice in the UK in the management of the anophthalmic socket; choice of enucleation, evisceration, type of orbital implant, wrap, motility pegging and complications. METHODS: All consultant ophthalmologists in the UK were surveyed by postal questionnaire. Questions included their practice subspecialty and number of enucleations and eviscerations performed in 2003. Specific questions addressed choice of implant, wrap, motility pegging and complications. RESULTS: 456/896 (51%) consultants responded, of which 162 (35%) had a specific interest in oculoplastics, lacrimal, orbits or oncology. Only 243/456 (53%) did enucleations or eviscerations. 92% inserted an orbital implant after primary enucleation, 69% after non-endophthalmitis evisceration, whereas only 43% did so after evisceration for endophthalmitis (50% as a delayed procedure). 55% used porous orbital implants (porous polyethylene, hydroxyapatite or alumina) as their first choice and 42% used acrylic. Most implants inserted were spherical, sized 18-20 mm in diameter. 57% wrapped the implant after enucleation, using salvaged autogenous sclera (20%), donor sclera (28%) and synthetic Vicryl or Mersilene mesh (42%). A minority (7%) placed motility pegs in selected cases, usually as a secondary procedure. 14% of respondents reported implant exposure for each type of procedure and extrusion was reported by 4% after enucleation and 3% after evisceration. CONCLUSIONS: This survey highlights contemporary anophthalmic socket practice in the UK. Most surgeons use porous orbital implants with a synthetic wrap after enucleation and only few perform motility pegging.

Consultants↗