Purpose: To identify the reasons for delayed presentation among patients with sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR) and to assess their knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) patterns in context to diabetes mellitus (DM) and diabetic retinopathy (DR). Methods: Single-center, cross-sectional, questionnaire-based KAP survey. All consecutive cases of STDR who presented to our tertiary eye care facility from June 2020 to November 2020 were recruited. The KAP scoring survey tool was incorporated into the questionnaire to help evaluate and represent the patient's disease. Results: 170 patients with STDR were enrolled in the study. The mean age of patients was 54 ± 9.34 years (Range: 21–70 years); 110 patients (64.7%) were between 41 and 60 years; 131 patients (76%) had DM for more than 5 years. The STDR changes were more prevalent in patients with an educational qualification of high school or less ( n = 142; 83.5%). Fifty-two patients (30.6%) had been informed regarding the detrimental effect of diabetes on the eyes and were recommended to consult an ophthalmologist by the treating physician. Of these, 24 (46.15%) patients were educated about retinal changes due to diabetes. Eighty-five (50%) patients in our study had good knowledge about DM; 13 (7.6%) patients had good knowledge about DR. For patients not compliant for follow-ups with the treating physician, the use of “home glucometers for self-monitoring ( n = 60, 35.3%) was the most prevalent reason. The main reason for poor compliance for undergoing a dilated fundus examination by the ophthalmologist was “Had good vision, so didn’t feel the need” in 143 (90.5%) patients. Conclusion: The absence of visual complaints, lack of knowledge, and failure to undergo a dilated fundus examination in the past were the prevalent risk factors in patients presenting with STDR. Knowledge/practice about DR was poor among the patients with STDR. The treating physicians and ophthalmologists were the most common sources for patient education.
We report a case of ocular tuberculosis (TB) which initially presented with disc edema and was mistaken for optic neuritis. With no definite pathology being identified, the patient was treated on the lines of optic neuritis with intravenous (IV) steroid with beneficial effect. Ocular TB was suspected when he presented later with a subretinal abscess. Based on positive Mantoux, QuantiFERON TB gold results and radiographic findings, a diagnosis of subretinal abscess of presumed tubercular etiology was made. The patient was successfully treated with anti-tubercular therapy. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case report of ocular TB presenting as disc edema followed by subretinal abscess.
BackgroundThe term multifocal serpiginoid choroiditis (MSC) has been proposed for the infective variant of serpiginous choroiditis (SC) to distinguish it from typical SC believed to be autoimmune related. The role of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTb) in MSC has been studied by conventional polymerase chain reaction (PCR). However, the use of real-time PCR (RT-PCR) and nested PCR (N-PCR) in MSC has not been reported. This paper aims to highlight the usefulness of PCR in identifying MTb as a causative agent for MSC leading to its correct treatment with anti-tubercular therapy (ATT).FindingsA young male with a family history of tuberculosis (TB) presented with a history of diminution of vision (DOV) since 3 months in his right eye (RE). He gave similar history in his left eye (LE) since 3 years. His fundus findings were suggestive of MSC. His high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) chest and Quanti-FERON TB gold results were positive for MTb. These suggested TB to be the likely cause for MSC. This was confirmed by a positive N-PCR report of his aqueous specimen. Further RT-PCR was done to quantify the bacillary load before starting therapy. He was advised 9 months of ATT with 6 weeks of oral steroids. At last follow-up, the RE showed better healing than the LE with fewer chorioretinal scars and a better visual acuity.ConclusionsRT and N-PCR for MTb are useful in establishing a tuberculous etiology in MSC. Coupled with a good response to ATT, these tests justify the use of ATT in MSC with a PCR-confirmed MTb report.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12348-014-0029-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Purpose: To compare the outcomes of immediate pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) and tap and inject in eyes with postcataract surgery endophthalmitis.Methods: Patients presenting with acute postcataract surgery endophthalmitis and visual acuity between $ hand movement and ,6/18 were randomized to receive either PPV (Group A) or tap and inject (Group B).Results: There were 26 and 31 eyes in Group A and Group B, respectively. The final mean visual acuity at 6 weeks [0.14 (Snellen equivalent 6/7.5) versus 0.22 (Snellen equivalent 6/9.5) LogMAR in Groups A and B, respectively; P = 0.2] was similar. However, eyes in Group A had significantly greater mean letter gain in vision compared with Group B (66.36 vs. 43.36, P = 0.02), and more eyes in Group A (88%) than in Group B (65%) attained a visual acuity of $ 6/18 (P = 0.06). Eyes in Group B needed more reinterventions including delayed vitrectomy after tap and inject than those in Group A (39% vs. 8%; P = 0.09). On subgroup analysis, the mean visual acuity at the final follow-up was significantly better in the immediate PPV group compared with the delayed PPV group (P = 0.04).Conclusion: PPV resulted in earlier recovery, lesser interventions, and greater change in visual acuity than tap and inject in eyes with postcataract surgery endophthalmitis presenting with visual acuity of $HM.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.