No abstract

No abstract

Peribulbar anesthesia for vitreoretinal surgery can probably be performed safely in patients receiving anticoagulants. However, retinal surgeons should be aware that severe bleeding complications are more frequent in patients receiving antiplatelet therapy.

Among the four tested dyes, only ICG led to functional and structural retinal damage.

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose To establish the prevalence of anticoagulant, aspirin, and clopidogrel use in patients undergoing vitreoretinal surgery, and to compare the outcome of peribulbar anesthesia between users and non‐users. Methods We conducted a retrospective case series in one academic center between January and June 2009. We analyzed the chart of 239 eyes who underwent posterior segment surgery with peribulbar anesthesia. No changes in the anticoagulant regimen were made prior to surgery. We divided patients into 7 groups: group 1: patients with no anticoagulants and 6 groups defined according to the type of anticoagulant or antiplatelet medication. Results 239 eyes (206 patients) were included: 168 eyes without any anticoagulant medication (70.3%) and 71 eyes with anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet agents (29.7%). Only 3 cases of long‐term sight‐threatening hemorrhagic complications (4.2%) were noted: 2 from patients with pseudo‐tumoral form of age‐related macular degeneration associated with vitreous hemorrhage, and 1 from patient with tractionnal retinal detachment secondary to complicated diabetic retinopathy. No surgery was post‐poned or cancelled due to an anesthetic complication.The incidence of postoperative hemorrhagic complications was increased in patients taking anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet medications (P=0.001) vs non‐users. Conclusion Peribulbar anesthesia for vitreoretinal surgery can be safely performed in patients receiving anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet agents.

Purpose To evaluate the reliability of expected peeled surface after internal limiting membrane (ILM) removal by junior and senior surgeons with or without Brilliant Blue G (BBG) dye. Methods We conducted a prospective study based on videorecordings of epiretinal membrane surgeries. Surgeries were performed by a senior vitreoretinal surgeon (SS) and two junior surgeons (JS). Patients were included into two groups: SS(group 1) and JS(group 2). In each surgery, after the ILM peeling, the surgeon described the expected peeled area (A1). Then, the instillation of brilliant blue G stained the actual peeled area (A2). The third area (A3) corresponded to the additional surface peeled with the help of BBG. Areas were measured in square millimeters using the software ImageJ 1.43 µ. Results 15 patients were included in each group. In the group 1, A1 was 15.1+/‐5.1 mm2, A2 was 13.0+/‐8.0 mm2 and A3 was 16.3+/‐5.0 mm2. In the group 2, A1 was 6.5+/‐4.4 mm2, A2 was 5.9+/‐5.3 mm2 and A3 was 11.2+/‐5.1 mm2. In both groups, there was no stastical difference between A1 and A2 (P = 0.1875 and P = 0.5186 respectivally in group 1 and 2). A2 in the group 1 was significantly larger than A2 in the group 2 (P = 0.0195)as well as A3 (P = 0.0166). Conclusion In our study, both senior and junior surgeons were able to determine the surface of ILM peeled without BBG. However, the surface of ILM peeled with the dye was larger with BBG with both junior and senior surgeons.