No abstract

No abstract

PurposeTo report the incidence and clinical features of patients that experienced un-explained visual loss following silicone oil (SO) removal.MethodsMulticenter retrospective study of patients that underwent SO removal during 2000–2012. Visual loss of ≥2 lines was considered significant.ResultsA total of 324 eyes of 324 patients underwent SO removal during the study period. Forty two (13%) eyes suffered a significant visual loss following SO removal. Twenty three (7.1%) of these eyes lost vision secondary to known causes. In the remaining 19 (5.9%) eyes, the loss of vision was not explained by any other pathology. Eleven of these 19 patients (57.9%) were male. The mean age of this group was 49.2 ± 16.4 years. Eyes that had an un-explained visual loss had a mean IOP while the eye was filled with SO of 19.6 ± 6.9 mm Hg. The length of time that the eye was filled with SO was 14.8 ± 4.4 months. In comparison, eyes that did not experience visual loss had a mean IOP of 14 ± 7.3 mm Hg (p < 0.0002) and a mean tamponade duration of 9.3 ± 10.9 months (p < 0.0001).ConclusionsAn un-explained visual loss after SO removal was observed in 5.9% of eyes. Factors associated with this phenomenon included a higher IOP and longer SO tamponade duration.

PURPOSE: To assess the effectiveness and safety of an intravitreal injection of 1.25 mg bevacizumab (IVB) as a preoperative adjunct to small-gauge pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) compared with PPV alone in eyes with tractional retinal detachment secondary to proliferative diabetic retinopathy.METHODS: This prospective, double-masked, randomized, multicenter, active-controlled clinical trial enrolled 224 eyes of 224 patients between November 2013 and July 2015. All eyes underwent a baseline examination including best-corrected visual acuity, color photos, optical coherence tomography, and fluorescein angiography. Data were collected on intraoperative bleeding, total surgical time, early (<1 month) postoperative vitreous hemorrhage, and mean change in best-corrected visual acuity at 12 months. P < .05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 214 patients (214 eyes) were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to PPV plus IVB ([study group] 102 eyes) or PPV plus sham ([control] 112 eyes). Iatrogenic retinal breaks were noted intraoperatively in 35 eyes (34.3%) in the study group, and 66 eyes (58.9%) in the control group (P [ .001). Grade 2 intraoperative bleeding was noted in 32 (31.3%) eyes in the study group and 58 (51.7 %) eyes in the control group (P [ .001). Endodiathermy was necessary in 28 (27.4 %) eyes in the study group, compared with 75 (66.9%) eyes in the control group (P [ .0001). Mean surgical time was 71.3 ± 32.1 minutes in the study group and 83.6 ± 38.7 minutes in the control group (P [ .061). CONCLUSION: Preoperative IVB seems to reduce intraoperative bleeding, improving surgical field visualization, and reducing intraoperative and postoperative complications. NOTE: Publication of this article is sponsored by the

This paper demonstrates multiple benefits of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) on diabetic retinopathy (DR) including diabetic macular edema (DME) and proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) at 24 months of followup. This is a retrospective multicenter interventional comparative case series of intravitreal injections of 1.25 or 2.5 mg of bevacizumab for DME, PDR without tractional retinal detachment (TRD), and patients who experienced the development or progression of TRD after an intravitreal injection of 1.25 or 2.5 mg of bevacizumab before vitrectomy for the management of PDR. The results indicate that IVB injections may have a beneficial effect on macular thickness and visual acuity (VA) in diffuse DME. Therefore, in the future this new therapy could complement focal/grid laser photocoagulation in DME. In PDR, this new option could be an adjuvant agent to panretina photocoagulation so that more selective therapy may be applied. Finally, TRD in PDR may occur or progress after IVB used as an adjuvant to vitrectomy. Surgery should be performed 4 days after IVB. Most patients had poorly controlled diabetes mellitus associated with elevated HbA1c, insulin administration, PDR refractory to panretinal photocoagulation, and longer time between IVB and vitrectomy.

Intravitreal bevacizumab at doses up to 2.5 mg seems to be effective in improving BCVA and reducing CMT in macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion. No statistically significant differences were found between the two dose groups with regard to the number of injections, CMT, and change in BCVA.

The study provides evidence to support the use of primary IVB with or without GLP as treatment of diffuse diabetic macular edema. Primary IVB without GLP seems to be superior to GLP alone to provide stability or improvement in best-corrected visual acuity in patients with diffuse diabetic macular edema at 24 months.

No abstract