In EDS ansehen

International Survey of Current Approaches to the Management of Neuropathic Corneal Pain by Experts

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Titel: International Survey of Current Approaches to the Management of Neuropathic Corneal Pain by Experts
Autoren: Samy El Omda, Nikolaos Tzoumas, Margarita Calonge, Francisco Figueiredo
Quelle: Ophthalmology and Therapy, Vol 14, Iss 12, Pp 3035-3046 (2025)
Verlagsinformationen: Adis, Springer Healthcare, 2025.
Publikationsjahr: 2025
Bestand: LCC:Ophthalmology
Schlagwörter: Cornea/innervation, Corneal diseases/diagnosis, Cornea/pain, Eye pain/etiology, Eye pain/diagnosis, Eye pain/therapy, Ophthalmology, RE1-994
Beschreibung: Abstract Introduction Neuropathic corneal pain (NCP) is a challenging condition with limited consensus on its diagnosis and management. This study aimed to gather global insights from corneal specialists on the causes, investigative approaches, and management strategies for NCP. Methods A 32-question survey covering demographic, causes, investigations, treatments, and multidisciplinary engagement was sent to 152 invited international corneal specialists; 51 (34%) responded. We explored descriptive statistics and examined how responder characteristics influenced their answers. Results The most reported causes of NCP were chronic ocular surface disease (n = 41; 41%) and post-surgical factors (n = 34; 34%). The most common investigations, routinely performed by respondents, were the anesthetic challenge test, Schirmer’s test, and corneal esthesiometry. In vivo confocal microscopy (IVCM) was routinely used by 37% (n = 19), with 69% (n = 29) of specialists stating that an abnormal result influenced their management. Ocular surface and pain questionnaires were used by 69% (n = 35), with the Ocular Surface Disease Index being the most popular (n = 25; 31%). Common treatments included artificial tears (n = 48; 94%), serum/plasma-derived tears (n = 41; 80%), topical corticosteroids (n = 34; 67%), and topical cyclosporin (n = 30; 59%). Only 38% (n = 19) felt comfortable independently prescribing systemic pharmacotherapy. A multidisciplinary approach was adopted by 47% (n = 24), with the two most common specialties involved being pain management (n = 30; 37%) and neurology (n = 26, 32%). Conclusions This survey provides valuable global insights into the causes, investigations, and management of NCP from the perspective of corneal specialists. These findings support further research and the development of guidelines to address this challenging condition.
Publikationsart: article
Dateibeschreibung: electronic resource
Sprache: English
ISSN: 2193-8245
2193-6528
Relation: https://doaj.org/toc/2193-8245; https://doaj.org/toc/2193-6528
DOI: 10.1007/s40123-025-01242-8
Zugangs-URL: https://doaj.org/article/5282dabaee1747ac9f1df1a5d828171a
Dokumentencode: edsdoj.5282dabaee1747ac9f1df1a5d828171a
Datenbank: Directory of Open Access Journals
Beschreibung
Abstract:Abstract Introduction Neuropathic corneal pain (NCP) is a challenging condition with limited consensus on its diagnosis and management. This study aimed to gather global insights from corneal specialists on the causes, investigative approaches, and management strategies for NCP. Methods A 32-question survey covering demographic, causes, investigations, treatments, and multidisciplinary engagement was sent to 152 invited international corneal specialists; 51 (34%) responded. We explored descriptive statistics and examined how responder characteristics influenced their answers. Results The most reported causes of NCP were chronic ocular surface disease (n = 41; 41%) and post-surgical factors (n = 34; 34%). The most common investigations, routinely performed by respondents, were the anesthetic challenge test, Schirmer’s test, and corneal esthesiometry. In vivo confocal microscopy (IVCM) was routinely used by 37% (n = 19), with 69% (n = 29) of specialists stating that an abnormal result influenced their management. Ocular surface and pain questionnaires were used by 69% (n = 35), with the Ocular Surface Disease Index being the most popular (n = 25; 31%). Common treatments included artificial tears (n = 48; 94%), serum/plasma-derived tears (n = 41; 80%), topical corticosteroids (n = 34; 67%), and topical cyclosporin (n = 30; 59%). Only 38% (n = 19) felt comfortable independently prescribing systemic pharmacotherapy. A multidisciplinary approach was adopted by 47% (n = 24), with the two most common specialties involved being pain management (n = 30; 37%) and neurology (n = 26, 32%). Conclusions This survey provides valuable global insights into the causes, investigations, and management of NCP from the perspective of corneal specialists. These findings support further research and the development of guidelines to address this challenging condition.
ISSN:21938245
21936528
DOI:10.1007/s40123-025-01242-8