In refractive surgery candidates with healthy eyes, the elevation map measurements with the single-Scheimpflug system were significantly different from those with the dual-Scheimpflug system in most aspects and therefore may lead to misinterpretation of clinical data that could alter clinical decisions if the 2 imaging systems are considered interchangeable.
Filtering surgeries are frequently used for controlling intraocular pressure in glaucoma patients. The long-term success of operation is intimately influenced by the process of wound healing at the site of surgery. Indeed, if has not been anticipated and managed accordingly, filtering surgery in high-risk patients could end up in bleb failure. Several strategies have been developed so far to overcome excessive scarring after filtering surgery. The principal step involves meticulous tissue handling and modification of surgical technique, which can minimize the severity of wound healing response at the first place. However, this is usually insufficient, especially in those with high-risk criteria. Thus, several adjuvants have been tried to stifle the exuberant scarring after filtration surgery. Conventionally, corticosteroids and anti-fibrotic agents (including 5-fluorouracil and Mitomycin-C) have been used for over three decades with semi-acceptable outcomes. Blebs and bleb associated complications are catastrophic side effects of anti-fibrotic agents, which occasionally are encountered in a subset of patients. Therefore, research continues to find a safer, yet effective adjuvant for filtering surgery. Recent efforts have primarily focused on selective inhibition of growth factors that promote scarring during wound healing process. Currently, only anti-VEGF agents have gained widespread acceptance to be translated into routine clinical practice. Robust evidence for other agents is still lacking and future confirmative studies are warranted. In this review, we explain the importance of wound healing process during filtering surgery, and describe the conventional as well as potential future adjuvants for filtration surgeries.
The observed differences in WTW distance readings between the Pentacam HR and the Orbscan IIz are not clinically relevant, and the 2 devices could be used interchangeably in clinical practice.
Background: White-to-white corneal measurement is used frequently in cataract and refractive surgery as well as in diagnosing various corneal diseases and monitoring congenital glaucoma. In this article, we determine agreement in horizontal corneal diameter measurements in normal eyes among the Galilei V4.01, the EyeSys and the Orbscan IIz. Methods: In this prospective study, 37 consecutive volunteers were enrolled. All 74 eyes were measured with all three devices. Galilei, EyeSys and Orbscan II measurements were compared with one another. In addition, the data from the right and left eyes were compared for each device. Results: The mean horizontal corneal diameter measurements with the Galilei, the EyeSys and the Orbscan II were 12.01 Ϯ 0.61 mm, 12.09 Ϯ 0.87 mm and 11.67 Ϯ 0.29 mm, respectively. The difference between the Galilei and EyeSys systems was not statistically significant (p = 0.76), however, the Orbscan II showed smaller measurements (p < 0.001). The best 95% limits of agreement between devices were for the Galilei and the Orbscan II (-0.72, 1.48; r = 0.4, p < 0.01). The best 95% limits of agreement between two eyes for each device were found with the Orbscan II (-0.15, 0.17; r = 0.996, p < 0.01). There was no correlation between measurements of right and left eyes for the Galilei or the EyeSys (r = 0.274, p = 0.176 and r = 0.31, p = 0.065, respectively). Conclusions: These results suggest that measurements made with the Orbscan II are smaller than those obtained with the EyeSys Corneal Analysis system and the Galilei. Among the three devices, the Galilei and the Orbscan II showed the best agreement, however, it is inadvisable to use the three devices interchangeably in every clinical situation.
These data indicate that in the assessment of normal eyes, Orbscan gives consistently higher measurements for anterior chamber depth compared with Galilei and Pentacam. Because the differences between Orbscan and either Galilei or Pentacam were not within clinically acceptable levels, they are not interchangeable in every clinical situation. However, the differences among anterior chamber depth values measured with Galilei and Pentacam were within clinically acceptable levels. Thus, these 2 systems can be regarded as interchangeable.
Over the past few years, visual prostheses (namely, Argus II retinal implant) and gene therapy have obtained FDA approval in treating blindness resulting from retinitis pigmentosa. Compared to gene therapy; Argus II is less costly with a demonstrated favorable outcome, though the vision is yet artificial. To obtain better results, expectation counseling and preoperative retinal assessment are critical. The global experience with Argus II has enrolled no more than 300 cases so far. The first Argus II retinal prosthesis in Iran was successfully implanted in Shiraz (October 2017). To date, Argus II artificial retina is implanted in four patients in Iran. Beside successful surgery and post-operative care, rehabilitation efforts with validated outcome measures including visual rehabilitation together with neurovisual, visuo-constructive and cognitive rehabilitation/empowerment approaches are expected to boost the functional outcome. A multidisciplinary approach within a cross-functional team would optimize strategies toward better patient outcomes. As such, establishing a collaborative network will foster organized research efforts to better define outcome assessment and rehabilitation strategies. This technology report paper has been an attempt to provide an overview of Argus-II retinal implant global experience as well as the clinical outcome of the so far cases in Iran. Insights from this report were communicated during the first “Brain Engineering and Computational Neuroscience Conference,” 31 January-2 February 2018 in Tehran.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.