Pneumatic vitreolysis with C3F8 gas is effective in releasing focal vitreomacular traction in a high percentage of eyes with few adverse events, especially with limited vitreomacular traction (within 1 disk area), lack of thick cellophane membranes, no diabetes mellitus, younger age (mean age of 69.1 years vs. 78.1 years), better baseline best spectacle–corrected visual acuity (mean of 20/50 vs. 20/66), small Stage 2 macular hole, and female gender.

Pneumatic vitreolysis (PVL) is the intravitreal injection of a small quantity of expansile gas for the purpose of achieving focal vitreomacular traction (VMT) release for eyes with symptomatic VMT, or inducing VMT release and closure of the macular defect for eyes with a small stage-2 macular hole (MH). Initially, there was limited interest in this technique upon its introduction for clinical treatment in human eyes in 1993. With the advent of optical coherence tomography allowing detailed observation of vitreomacular interface changes and rising importance of medical economics in recent years, there has been increasing interest in PVL, a low-cost procedure for managing symptomatic VMT. The success rates of VMT release in the literature have ranged from 60% to 100% and the rates of closure of small macular holes have ranged from 50% to 80% following PVL. In a recent retrospective consecutive series of 56 eyes in two centers undergoing C3F8 gas injection, Chan and Mein reported an overall success of 86% in VMT release and 60% closure of small macular holes with few adverse events (7% with retinal breaks, retinal detachment, or progression of VMT). Multiple recent studies have shown superior outcome utilizing C3F8 gas compared with SF6 gas for PVL. In conclusion, PVL is a promising, low-cost therapeutic option, with the potential for managing symptomatic focal VMT on a global scale.

No abstract

These data suggest that decreases in plasma free-VEGF levels are greater after treatment with aflibercept or bevacizumab compared with ranibizumab at 4 weeks. At 52 and 104 weeks, a greater decrease was observed in bevacizumab versus ranibizumab. Results from 2 subgroups of participants who did not receive injections within at least 1 month and 2 months before collection suggest similar changes in VEGF levels after stopping injections. It is unknown whether VEGF levels return to normal as the drug is cleared from the system or whether the presence of the drug affects the assay's ability to accurately measure free VEGF. No significant associations between VEGF concentration and systemic factors were noted.