Clinical ophthalmology最新文献

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of inter-eye osmolarity differences in relation to dry eye symptoms and other non-osmolar signs of dry eye disease.

Patients and methods: One hundred ninety one participants who attended a larger interventional study of dry eye disease prior to and after cataract surgery were analyzed for dry eye disease (DED). Dry eye diagnostics were performed for all subjects according to the DEWS II criteria: tear osmolarity was collected from both eyes with the TearLab system, non-invasive Tear film break up time (NIKBUT) was obtained on the test eye with Keratograph and ocular surface staining (OSS) was evaluated using the Oxford schema. The Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire was used to assess symptoms. Inter-eye osmolarity greater than 8, which is considered as a sign of DED according to the TearLab user manual, was evaluated and compared with other non-osmolar signs of DED.

Results: The 191 subjects were divided into three groups according to osmolarity measurements. Sixty-five subjects had normal osmolarity (below 308 mOsmol/L in both eyes and less than 9 mOsmol/L difference between the eyes), 107 had high osmolarity (308 mOsmol/L or higher in one of the eyes) and 19 had an inter-eye difference >8 mOsmol/L or higher, with neither eye having osmolarity higher than 307 mOsmol/L. Signs and symptoms in this last group were not correlated with the high osmolarity group or the normal group, though they appeared more similar to the normal group.

Conclusion: The diagnostic value of inter-eye osmolarity difference in predicting symptoms or other non-osmolar signs of dry eyes appears weak. Our study suggests that the criterion of an inter-eye difference of 8 mOsmol/L is not a useful cut-off for diagnosing dry eyes based on osmolarity.

Purpose: Identify the long-term rate of fellow eye full-thickness macular hole (FTMH) development.

Patients and methods: In this single site, single provider retrospective consecutive case series, idiopathic FTMH patients who underwent surgery from 2003 to 2014 who also had at least 5 years of follow-up information within our electronic medical record (EMR) which was started in 2014 were identified. Cases with secondary causes (ie, trauma), high myopia, bilateral FTMH on presentation, previous retinal surgery, retinal breaks, or intraocular inflammation were excluded. Demographics, medical and ocular history, refractive error, phakic status, best corrected visual acuity, follow-up duration, surgical technique, single operation anatomic success, and reoperations were recorded.

Results: The rate of fellow eye FTMH was 2.6% (2/77) at 1 year, 5.2% (4/77) at 3 years, 9.1% (6/66) at 6 years, and 9.1% (7/77) as of final follow up. There were 2 cases by year 1, 2 additional cases by year 3, 2 additional cases by year 6, and 1 additional case reported thereafter. The average follow up was 11.1 ± 4.5 years. There was no significant difference in visual outcomes between primary eyes and fellow eyes. There was no significant difference in gender, age, ocular comorbidities, refractive error, phakic status, and visual acuity between the unilateral and bilateral groups.

Conclusion: The rate of FTMH in the fellow eye was low but significant, increased during long-term follow up, and may stabilize after 6 years.

Purpose: To assess the possible correlation of anti-retinal antibody titers and number of anti-retinal antibodies with outcome measurements including visual acuity, subjective vision loss, visual field, and electroretinography in patients with autoimmune retinopathy.

Design: Single-center, retrospective cross-sectional study.

Patients and methods: Patients with autoimmune retinopathy who underwent anti-retinal antibody testing at least twice during their follow-up were enrolled. Anti-retinal antibody titers and numbers were grouped as improved, stable, or worsened. Outcomes included Snellen visual acuity, patient-reported vision loss, Humphrey visual field mean deviations, and electroretinography parameters.

Results: Thirty-one eyes among 16 patients with autoimmune retinopathy were included. Between-group analyses of visual acuity, subjective vision loss, visual field, and electroretinography outcomes did not reveal any significant differences by anti-retinal antibody titer or number group at a 95% confidence interval.

Conclusion: Changes in anti-retinal antibody titers or numbers were not associated with any vision outcome. Repeated anti-retinal antibody testing may be unnecessary after diagnosis of autoimmune retinopathy and detection of an anti-retinal antibody.

Purpose: To compare the outcomes of primary uncomplicated rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) repair using pars plana vitrectomy (PPV), scleral buckling (SB), or combined scleral buckling with vitrectomy (SB/PPV).

Patients and methods: Single-institution, retrospective, observational study of 179 patients with primary RRD managed at a large academic hospital system. We excluded patients with less than 6 months of follow-up, previous vitrectomy or buckle, giant retinal tears, aphakia, recurrent forms of RRD, or extensive proliferative vitreoretinopathy (Grade C or worse) documented on exam or requiring membrane peel. Outcome measures included primary anatomical success at 6 months, functional success defined as BCVA ≥ 20/200, and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) using logMAR scoring. Subgroup analysis was performed in the following patient groups: phakic, pseudophakic, inferior detachments, and prior pneumatic retinopexy.

Results: Primary anatomical success was achieved in 145 of 179 eyes (81.0%), with SB/PPV showing a significantly greater success rate (p = 0.046) when compared to SB and PPV. Functional success was achieved in 137 of the 145 anatomically successful eyes (94.5%), with values ranging between 92% and 97% amongst the interventions (p = 0.552). No difference was found in final BCVA (p = 0.367). Patients with inferior detachment had an odds ratio of 2.15 for primary anatomic failure. Prior pneumatic retinopexy did not significantly affect any of the primary outcomes.

Conclusion: SB/PPV yielded a significantly better primary anatomical success rate when compared to SB and PPV. Functional success and final BCVA was similar amongst the interventions. Inferior detachments were associated with worse primary anatomic outcomes. Prior pneumatic retinopexy did not significantly affect surgical outcomes.

Purpose: To assess the safety and efficacy of primary duet intraocular lens (IOL) procedure using an in-The-bag monofocal IOL and a sulcus-based multifocal reversible platform for cataract surgery. The visual outcomes were compared with a single in-The-bag multifocal IOL.

Patients and methods: Retrospective cohort study. Consecutive patients who underwent primary duet IOL procedures were compared with consecutive patients who underwent single multifocal IOL surgery. Primary outcomes were uncorrected distance and near visual acuities (UDVA and UNVA), refraction and spherical equivalent data. Secondary outcomes included surgical complications.

Results: The study group consisted of 32 eyes (22 toric IOLs) whilst the control group had 57 eyes (29 toric IOLs). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups on post-operative 1-month and 1-year UDVA (p=0.1522 and 0.4926, respectively) and UNVA (p=0.1248 and 0.2738, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences in the postoperative 1-month spherical equivalent within ± 0.5 diopter (p=0.1891). Postoperative intraocular pressure spikes were observed on day-1 in both groups, with most returned to their baseline at 1-month and all were normal at 1-year post surgery. There were no statistically significant differences in intraocular pressure between the two groups on day-1, 1-month and 1-year after surgery (p=0.6421). There were no statistically significant differences in the IOL axis deviation from the intended axis in the toric subgroup analysis (p=0.5843).

Conclusion: Primary duet IOL procedure is equally effective and safe in correcting distance and near vision when compared with single multifocal IOL in the capsular bag.

Corneal perforations are ophthalmological emergencies which can have serious and detrimental consequences, if not managed timely and appropriately. These are a significant cause of ocular morbidity and can result in decreased vision, blindness, and even loss of the eye. Corneal perforations can be managed using a range of treatment approaches, including temporary solutions such as the application of corneal glue and bandage contact lens, as well as definitive treatment such as corneal transplantation. Tissue glues/adhesives were developed as substitutes for sutures in ophthalmic surgery. Unlike sutures, these glues are associated with shorter overall surgical times and reduced inflammation, thus improving postoperative comfort without compromising wound strength. The available tissue adhesives can be broadly classified into two types: synthetic (eg, cyanoacrylate derivatives) and biological (eg, fibrin glue). Cyanoacrylate glue is chiefly used as a corneal patch to manage acute corneal perforations and improve visual outcomes. Fibrin glue can be used instead of cyanoacrylate glue in many conditions with the benefits of reduced conjunctival and corneal inflammation and reaction. Apart from this, each type of adhesive is distinct in terms of its benefits as well as limitations and is accordingly used for different indications. The present review focuses on the two main types of tissue adhesives, their applications in the management of corneal perforations, the associated complications, safety and efficacy data related to their use available in the literature and the need for newer adhesives in this field.

Purpose: To evaluate real-world experience using intravitreal brolucizumab (IVBr), alone or in combination with aflibercept, in eyes with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) treated previously with other inhibitors of VEGF (anti-VEGF).

Methods: This was a retrospective study of all eyes with nAMD treated with IVBr on a treat-and-extend protocol at a single center. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), optical coherence tomography (OCT) at baseline and final visit, and drug-related adverse events were analyzed. Eyes with recurrent macular fluid on IVBr every 8 weeks were treated with a combination therapy alternating between IVBr and aflibercept every month.

Results: Among 52 eyes (40 patients) on IVBr, all had been previously treated with other anti-VEGF therapy, with 73% having persistent macular fluid. After a mean follow-up of 46.2±27.4 weeks on IVBr, the mean treatment interval for intravitreal therapy increased to 8.8±2.1 weeks on IVBr from a baseline of 6.1±3.1 weeks (p<0.001). Macular fluid decreased and BCVA was stable/improved in 61.5% of eyes on IVBr. Ten eyes with increased macular fluid on IVBr monotherapy when extended to every 8 weeks were treated with combination therapy alternating between IVBr and aflibercept every 4 weeks. In these eyes, 80% had improved macular fluid on OCT and 70% stable or improved BCVA after a median follow-up of 53 weeks on combination therapy. Mild intraocular inflammation developed in four eyes, all occurring on IVBr monotherapy, and none had associated vision loss.

Conclusion: In the real world, IVBr used to treat eyes with nAMD previously treated with other anti-VEGF therapies appears to be well tolerated and associated with an improvement in macular fluid, stabilization of BCVA, and/or increase in intravitreal treatment interval. Combination therapy alternating between IVBr and aflibercept monthly appears to be well tolerated and can be considered for eyes with macular fluid on IVBr every 8 weeks.

Purpose: To analyse outcomes of innovator ranibizumab (IRM) (Lucentis) and biosimilar ranibizumab (BRM) (Razumab) in Indian eyes with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).

Methods: Retrospective observational study in nAMD patients, who were treated with IRM or BRM (3 loading doses followed by pro re nata (PRN). Primary outcome measures were change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) along with safety analysis. Secondary outcomes measures were changes in the subretinal fluid (SRF) and intraretinal fluid (IRF).

Results: Inclusion criteria were satisfied in 164 eyes (60.74%). A total of 87 eyes were treated with IRM, and 77 eyes received BRM. Baseline BCVA was 0.57±0.27 logMAR in IRM group and 0.61±0.25 in the BRM group. At 3, 6, 9, and 12 months BCVA was 0.27±0.22 (p<0.0001), 0.34±0.23 (p<0.0001), 0.39±0.25 (p<0.0001), and 12 months 0.41±0.23 (p<0.0001) in the IRM group and 0.24±0.16 (p<0.0001), 0.27±0.16 (p<0.0001), 0.34±0.17 (p<0.0001), 0.38±0.18 (p<0.0001) in the BRM group. Baseline CMT was 420.39±54.45 μm in IRM group and 407.82±53.07 μm in BRM group. At 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, CMT decreased to 258.28±20.4 μm (p<0.0001), 268.38±19.5 μm (p<0.0001), 269.51±32.41 μm (p<0.0001), and 278.28±16.56 μm (p<0.0001) in the IRM group and 258.84±17.47 μm (p<0.0001), 265.69±17.29 μm (p<0.0001), 273.64±23.13 μm (p<0.0001), and 283.09±19.66 μm (p<0.0001) in the BRM group. Similar improvements in IRF and SRF levels in the patients were noted in both groups. Required number of doses of IRM and BRM was similar over the 12 month period in both groups. A similar profile of adverse events was noted in both the groups.

Conclusion: Intravitreal injection of IRM and BRM show similar efficacy and safety in Indian eyes with nAMD.