Purpose: To describe the evaluation and referral process from a group of patients with uveitis presented at a specialized uveitis center in Bogotá, Colombia. Methods: An observational descriptive cross-sectional study was performed. After applying the selection criteria, 315 clinical records were recovered. Univariate and bivariate analyses were used, reporting proportions, means and standard deviations. Results: The mean age of the sample was 45.23 years old and 63.8% of them were females. Patients were mostly referred by retina specialists, general ophthalmologists, rheumatologists, and cornea specialists. Meantime between the first ocular symptom and uveitis specialist evaluation was 2.08 years. Patients had been previously evaluated by a mean of 1.9 ophthalmologists. In 79.9% of patients, inflammation was recognized by the remittent; however, only 4.7% of patients were correctly graded according to SUN classification. At first time consultation with the uvea specialist, 52.1% of the patients arrived with an adequate infectious panel, 58.1% with an adequate rheumatologic panel, 11.6% with aqueous humor PCR study, 65.1% with an initial etiological diagnosis, 34.9% with inadequate topical treatment, and 59.6% with inadequate systemic treatment. The mean time to reach a diagnosis by the uvea specialist was 5.27 weeks (0.10 years). A diagnostic coincidence was not reached in 58.7% of the cases. Conclusion: The referral process to uveitis specialists is complex but highly relevant for those who suffer from this pathology. Health professionals must be aware of the standardized classification of the disease, the appropriate treatment according to the classification, and early referral to the uveologist with adequate laboratory tests.

Purpose: Electrical and lightning injuries are rare but carry significant risks for ocular complications. This systematic review aims to synthesize data on ocular manifestations, visual outcomes, and treatment approaches following such traumas. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted up to August 21, 2023, utilizing PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Observational studies, including case reports, case series, and cross-sectional studies involving patients with electrical and lightning injuries, were included. Quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Hoy et al. tools for cross-sectional studies and the Hassan Murad et al. recommendations for case reports and series. Data on ocular manifestations, visual outcomes, and administered treatments were extracted. Manifestations were compared across high-voltage (≥ 1000 V) and low-voltage (< 1000 V) exposures. Visual outcomes were classified into no visual impairment (Best Corrected visual acuity [BCVA] better than 0.4 LogMAR), any vision impairment (BCVA of 0.4 LogMAR or worse), and legal blindness (BCVA of 1.0 LogMAR or worse). This review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023453495). Results: The review included 71 studies comprising 183 patients. Cataracts were the most common anterior segment finding (30.05%), and macular cysts were the predominant posterior segment finding (10.38%). Visual outcomes reported for 56 patients showed that 51.35% experienced some degree of visual impairment, with 33.92% classified as legally blind. High-voltage exposure was associated with a higher frequency of cataracts (82.35% vs 37.50%) and macular cysts (11.76% vs. 0%) compared to low-voltage injuries. Patients with legal blindness more frequently exhibited cataracts (73.68% of legally blind patients vs. 61.29% with some visual impairment vs. 56.0% with no visual impairment) and macular cysts (26.32% of legally blind patients vs. 12.0% with no visual impairment). Surgical interventions such as phacoemulsification (15.85%) and vitrectomy (6.02%) were conducted. Conclusion: Electrical and lightning injuries can lead to significant ocular complications; the frequency of those complications varies according to the voltage of exposure and the resulting visual outcomes, occurring more frequently in patients exposed to high voltages and those who are legally blind.

Purpose: To identify, through a scoping review of the literature, the evidence regarding the efficacy of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor treatment in corneal neovascularization. Materials and methods: A literature search was implemented in medical indexing databases: Medline (Pubmed), Web Of Science, Embase, and Scielo of articles in both English and Spanish, through the terms MesH and DeCs: "Corneal Neovascularization," "Cornea," "Ranibizumab", "Lucentis" and "Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor" in the last ten years (2013 - 2023). Results: 6,124 articles were initially found, which, after review and selection, resulted in a final sample of 37 articles, of which only 19 were clinical studies or case reports. The studies were conducted in both humans and animals. They reported results that included all types of vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) inhibitors available on the market, applied in different routes of administration, and with some combinations of therapies. The causes of corneal neovascularization varied widely. Conclusion: No adverse events were reported in any study, and all studies documented a decrease in the percentage or area of corneal neovascularization (NV) regardless of etiology or route of administration, being more effective topically and at higher doses. The most effective drugs were bevacizumab and ranibizumab, but more evidence is needed with experimental clinical studies in humans.

En el 2020, durante la pandemia por covid-19, disminuyeron los procedimientos en los centros de cirugía refractiva, pero resurgieron para octubre de ese mismo año, ya que aumentaron un 4 % en comparación con el 2019. Existe una información limitada sobre el impacto de la pandemia en la realización de cirugías y la razón que obedece a dicho aumento. Objetivo: identificar el efecto de la pandemia por covid-19 en la cirugía refractiva mediante la delimitación de las principales motivaciones para la realización del procedimiento. Métodos: estudio descriptivo observacional de corte transversal, por medio de la respuesta de un cuestionario sobre aspectos sociodemográficos y motivación quirúrgica. Resultados: fueron encuestados 203 participantes entre 31 y 40 años (47,8 %, n = 97), 18 y 30 años (39,9 %, n = 81) y mayores de 40 años (12,3 %, n = 25). El 61,1 % (n = 124) fueron mujeres y solo 3 (1,5 %) residían fuera de Colombia. Participaron con mayor frecuencia personas de estrato 4 (45,5 %) y 5 (24,3 %). Las principales motivaciones fueron: considerar que era el mejor momento para la cirugía, el deseo de evitar el uso de corrección óptica como respuesta al aumento del uso de pantallas y, por último, uso del tapabocas. Conclusiones: se demostró que el uso de tapabocas durante la pandemia, y el efecto de empañar las gafas, no fue una de las motivaciones más importantes, como sí lo fue el teletrabajo, pues la flexibilidad del horario laboral facilitó la posibilidad de la realización de cirugía refractiva, dejando este motivo como una de las posibles razones por las cuales se incrementaron los procedimientos realizados durante el 2020.