Results Visual acuity data on 6482 (84.7%) of the 7652 individuals were obtained. Of these, 184 had significant visual impairment (prevalence 2.84%) including 49 who were blind (vision of less than 3/60 in their better eye, prevalence 0.75%); if blindness was defined as vision less than or equal to 6/60, prevalence was 1.13% (n = 73). Details of 3 individuals could not be ascertained. Only 67 were registered, either as partially sighted (n = 42) or as blind (n = 25). In the maj ority (n = 133; 68%) of these 181 individuals the visual impairment was due to causes other than diabetic retinopathy.Conclusions The prevalence of blindness and visual impairment in our population of people with diabetes was low. Non-diabetic eye disease accounted for the maj ority of this visual impairment. This provides essential baseline data against which future progress can be assessed. Screening and treatment can greatly reduce the incidence of visual impairment due to diabetic retinopathy, but its impact on overall visual impairment rates in the population of people with diabetes will be more modest.

ABSTRACT.Purpose: Ocular side effects of systemic 5-fluorouracil therapy include excessive lacrimation which often resolves on cessation of therapy. Permanent stenosis of lacrimal puncta and canaliculi is rare. This report highlights this uncommon complication of 5-fluorouracil therapy. Methods: Report of two cases and review of literature. Results: Severe stenosis of puncta and canaliculi may be associated with prolonged systemic 5-fluorouracil therapy. Conclusion: It is important for both the oncologist and ophthalmologist to be aware of the potential ocular toxicity of 5-fluorouracil. Surgical management to relieve the epiphora is often challenging, and early intervention may be beneficial.

No abstract

Conclusions Suitably trained and accredited community optometrists performed well when screening for diabetic retinopathy using slit lamp biomicroscopy through a dilated pupil.This was facilitated by the use of simple grading and referral criteria. The sensitivity, positive likelihood ratio and specificity were high.

The Array multifocal IOL produced distance visual outcomes comparable to those of the AMO SI-40NB monofocal IOL in patients with concurrent eye disease. A significant proportion of these patients benefited from the IOL's multifocality. Management of associated eye disease was not compromised by the nature of the IOL.