Read more

February 11, 2021
1 min read
Save

Practice type influences blepharoplasty perioperative patterns

A survey identified patterns in blepharoplasty case management that varied by type of practice where surgeons work, according to a poster at the virtual American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery annual meeting.

“The goal of this study was to examine the practice patterns of ASOPRS members during the perioperative patient clinic visits for functional blepharoplasty and full-thickness wedge resection,” Caroline Vloka, MD, and Daniel Buerger, MD, wrote in the poster.

The 22-question online survey on preoperative planning practices and time to first postoperative visit was sent to current ASOPRS members; response rate was 62%.

Of 361 respondents, 18% worked with all oculoplastic surgeons, 23% worked in an academic setting, 28% worked at a solo practice, and 31% worked at a multispecialty practice. Practitioners who worked at academic centers called their patients less frequently compared with those who worked at other types of practices (P < .05).

Of practitioners who work with Mohs surgeons, 78% at multispecialty practices required an office visit before the procedure compared with 51% at all oculoplastic surgeon practices and 64% of solo practitioners (P < .05). For routine functional blepharoplasty, 74% of surgeons reported that they would see a patient on the day of surgery if the previous clinic visit was within 2 months, while 32% reported the same if the patient scheduled the procedure 6 months previously (P < .05).

The average time to first follow-up overall was 8 days for functional blepharoplasty and 8.7 days for full-thickness wedge resection. The average time to follow-up was 7.6 days among surgeons who used non-absorbable sutures compared with 8.6 days among those who used absorbable sutures (P < .05). There was no association between time to follow-up and number of years in practice.

“Our results show a longer time to first follow-up visits after index surgery as compared to previous reports,” Vloka and Buerger wrote. “We suspect this is likely due to the development and use of new methods of communication between patients and providers.”