Keeping a specific head position during the postoperative period is a fundamental part of many retinal surgical procedures, such as macular hole surgery, rhegmatogenous retinal detachment surgery, and subretinal hemorrhage displacements, among others.
3,13 Therefore, instructing the patients to maintain a specific position is considered by many as a standard of care and an important aspect of the surgical procedure.
9,11,12 Therefore, it is believed that the dedication and diligence with which patients follow the postoperative instructions could have a positive or negative influence in the overall surgical outcome.
The original technique of PR, as described by Hilton and Grizzard in 1986,
1 is based on two main principles: (1) The physical properties and surface tension exhibited by a bubble of gas tamponade, submerged in a semifluid media, such as the vitreous,
3 and (2) the formation of a chorioretinal scar around the edges of a retinal tear after application of thermal energy (laser or cryotherapy), preventing the passage of liquefied vitreous into the subretinal space.
2,11 After the gas tamponade has been injected into the vitreous cavity, the surface tension generated between the two interfaces forces the gas into adopting a spherical shape (bubble). The strong cohesive forces generated between the gas molecules at the surface of the bubble, allow the complete occlusion of the retinal tear, without losing or deforming its shape, and without migrating into the subretinal space. The physical separation created by the gas tamponade between the liquefied vitreous and retinal tear restricts the passage of more vitreous into the subretinal space. Simultaneously, the Na+/K+-ATPase, located in the apical membrane of the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE), drives the existing subretinal fluid into the intravascular space, inducing reattachment of the retina.
3,4,11 The buoyancy of the gas tamponade creates an ascending force vector that pushes the detached retina toward the RPE, favoring the chorioretinal adhesion even more. The greatest pushing force is exerted at the bubble's apex. Therefore, one of the main goals after the injection of the tamponade is to position the apex of the bubble as close as possible to the geometric center of the retinal tear.
4,11 However, these same physical properties prevent the gas bubble from being in perfect and smooth contact with the entire retinal surface and it will tend to move inside of the vitreous cavity in opposite direction to the head movements. A significant displacement of the bubble could lead to intermittent or permanent loss of contact between the gas tamponade and retinal tear, leading to surgical failure.
12,14,15
The mathematical model proposed by Eames et al.
16 allowed us to predict a contact angle of an intravitreal gas bubble with retina tissue of approximately 31°.
15,16 Based on the assumption that the interface is asymmetrical around the vertical axis of the bubble, which is located ideally at the center of the retinal tear, any deviation of >15° in any direction could potentially uncover an edge of the tear. We selected a cutoff value of 30% deviation in any axis as a measure of improper positioning, considering that this might induce a proportional 14° deviation of the contact angle of the gas bubble.
14–16
Despite the fact that all economic analyses have proven that PR is at least 50% more cost-effective than scleral buckle and pars plana vitrectomy for the treatment of retinal detachment,
17 the 2016 preference and trends survey of the American Society of Retinal Specialist (ASRS, PAT survey 2016) showed that 36% of all non-United States retinal specialists surveyed accepted never to perform a PR. In addition, 45.7% perform less than one PR per month and only 12.7% perform one to three PR per month.
10,17,18 The reason for such low popularity of the PR among non-United States retinal specialists is not well understood. However, we can speculate that the need for a close follow-up by the doctor, as well as the discomfort that strict head positioning poses for patients are a significant part of the problem.
The need for strict supervision of the patient's position after retinal surgery has been recognized previously. The “Maculog” device, developed by Verma et al.
11 is an ear-placed device aimed at registering the angular deviations in the position of the head, by means of a mercury-activated physical switch. In their study, the device was used in patients diagnosed with macular hole, after pars plana vitrectomy and strict face-down positioning. However, since the device relied heavily on a physical measurement with low gravitational sensitivity, the capabilities of the device to detect sudden, fast or sporadic changes in position was low.
11 Another similar device designed by Leitritz et al.
19 used a sensor placed on a headband very similar to the one used in the present study. However, their device lacks the capability of self-calibration and their study was focused on patients with macular hole surgery as well.
19 A significant improvement in devices design was introduced by Dimopoulos et al.
20 who built-in the capability of having real-time acoustic and vibration feedbacks as reminders for the patients to help them to return into a proper position. The device was tested on patients after macular hole surgery with excellent results.
20 Another innovation was introduced by Brodie et al.
21 by adapting a bluetooth antenna to the device, which allowed control of the device by a mobile platform. However, to our knowledge, the prototype has been tested only on healthy volunteers.
21
The device used in the current report incorporates several significant improvements to the basic design, followed in most of the previous studies. First, a simplified design with modern microcomponents allowed us to integrate all circuits into a single microcontroller card. The result was a cheaper device with the significant decrease in size and, therefore, a more comfortable experience for the patient (total weight including headband, 151.4 g; device weight, 7.5 g; device cost, ≈75 USD, including component and importation tax fees). Second, the incorporation of a rechargeable 3.7 V lithium polymer battery as a power source resulted in a decrease in the total weight, allowing to introduce a built-in power source into the headband as well. This feature might improve patients' tolerability and its rechargeable property decreased the cost of operation. Finally, the most important improvements were the self-calibration property of the sensor and the real-time recording on a MicroSD card of the patient's head position. The former allowed it to uniform the signals, which improved the response time of the device enabling it to record the smallest changes in vector orientation at a very fast rate (milliseconds). The latter allowed it to record a detailed log of the patient's behavior during the postoperative time. Until now, all previous devices were limited to only sensing the change in position. Some of them could also emit an alert or register the number of times patients move outside a certain range. The speed and frequency of each individual measurement with the current devices enabled a detailed reconstruction of the events following the PR. For the first time, retinal specialists can assess patients' adherence to postoperative instructions objectively during the unsupervised time elapsed between office visits. This kind of information could be used in the future to elaborate more detailed position nomograms and schedules to improve patients' adherence and surgical outcomes. Furthermore, the basic design of the described system could be adapted easily to register other postural changes and broaden its use for other ophthalmologic procedures (macular hole surgery) and nonophthalmologic tasks (dyskinesia studies, head dystonia studies, chorea studies, sleep disturbances, and elderly care among others). We intentionally did not include vibratory or acoustic position reminders and designed the device as small and stealthy as possible for two main reasons. First, conversely to macular hole surgery where the face down position is the same for every patient, the final head position in patients after PR can be affected by several factors. Mainly, the location and size of the retinal tear, and the actual size achieved by the gas bubble. The latter could drastically affect what is considered an “effective” head position or the position where the retinal tear is completely covered for each individual patient, since it could drastically change the angle of contact of the bubble with the retina. Our study was designed based on a theoretical assumption that all injected gas bubbles achieved the same volume and that all patients had similar clinical characteristics. Therefore, it is impossible to accurately select a useful (real) cutoff value regarding the maximal amount of “tolerable” deviation from the primary position to emit an alarm. Second, part of the goals of this first stage was to observe patient behavior and instructions compliance as objectively as possible and without interference. A vibratory or acoustic reminder would have prevented us from achieving this objective. In the second phase of this research, we will include acoustic and mobile phone reminders through a built-in bluetooth antenna and a specially designed mobile phone application to improve patient's compliance.
This study focused on patients with retinal detachment who were selected to undergo a PR. Since the vitreous remains in place, the injected gas bubble tends to occupy a smaller volume in the vitreous cavity than after a pars plana vitrectomy. Moreover, there was no subretinal fluid drainage as a part of the surgical procedure. This means that small variations on the head angulation could be critical. Our results showed that the proposed head-positioning tracking device is able to work continuously without failure. The study also proved that even after a comprehensive explanation of the importance of maintaining a certain position, the adherence of the patients to postoperative instructions is minimal, since no patient was able to maintain an acceptable head position for more than 5 hours. The study also showed that maintaining a sustained lateral flexion of the neck poses the greatest challenge for patients (mean, 5.5 ± 2.54 hours). The probable reason is that muscles involved with the lateral flexion of the neck, like the rectus capitis anterior, rectus capitis lateralis, rectus capitis posterior major, the anterior muscles of the neck, longissimus, splenius, and scalenus anterior, are muscles of short action and usually untrained for sustained contraction. Therefore, they are prone to lactic acid accumulation and fatigue. As detailed in
Table 1, most of our patients had retinal tears located at the X-XI and I-II meridians and only one had it exactly at the XII meridian. This means that most of them were instructed to keep a head position that included a certain degree of lateral flexion, matching our results.
In addition to the small sample and the fact that it is a pilot study, there are certain limitations that we would like to address. Although we were very careful in placing the device as close as possible to the study eye, the current design and capabilities do not account for more complex eye movements, such as incyclotorsion, excyclotorsion, pulsion, retropulsion, and gaze position, which could have an impact on the final position of the gas bubble in the intravitreous cavity. To correct this imprecision, the position sensor must be in close proximity with the ocular surface, like a contact lens or similar device. Another limitation is that even though the study was planned for a 24-hour device use time, we did not have control of the exact time of enrollment. Baseline measurements were done as soon as the patients signed the informed consent, and this could happen during morning or afternoon clinics. Regardless of the enrollment time, all of them were asked to come back the next day (as stated in the postoperative written instructions). Since we did not provide a specific time for the next appointment, all of them decided to come in during the next morning clinic schedule. This unaccounted behavior resulted in lower than expected average use time (19 hours) and widened the use range (15–21 hours). During the study, our device was able to work uninterrupted for several hours. However, this only represents a very short follow-up of the pathology and it is not enough to assess the impact of the patients' behavior in relation to the surgical outcome, nor for making new recommendations with a view to improving patient adherence to postoperative instructions. The only feasible conclusion with the available data is that all patients moved their heads outside of what was an arbitrary range selected by the authors, and were unable to keep the positioning for too long. Nevertheless, the main objective of the study was to assess the feasibility and functionality of the device, its capability for storing large data, the ability of the participants to follow instructions, and not the surgical outcome, especially because the results only show the patients' behavior during the first 24 hours after the PR, a period of time where the gas bubble may still be in an expansive phase.
Another possible limitation is that perhaps measuring only 10 seconds of every minute was not representative enough of the events occurring during the entire minute. Since we registered hundreds of thousands of individual measurements from each patient (who shared a similar characteristic) we decided to use a nonprobability sampling technique, as a systematic sample. This could have induced a selection bias. Therefore, caution is strongly advised before making statistical inferences to the general population with this data. Finally, the speed of subretinal fluid absorption may vary among patients with different baseline characteristics (age, time since retinal detachment, complex or multiple retinal tears, and so forth). Therefore, the impact of a strict head positioning will be of paramount importance in some patients (especially if using short-acting gases), whereas it may not be that important in others.
In conclusion, our study shows that it is possible to have a real-time monitoring of vital biomarkers, such as patient head position, by means of a wearable device after a PR. Maintaining a sustained lateral flexion of the neck for more than 5 hours is difficult to achieve and physicians should be aware of this when planning future treatments. Larger and longer studies are needed to assess the real impact of not adhering to postoperative instructions regarding head position on surgical outcomes. The current design of our device, though functional, is still not optimal since it does not account for complex eye movements.