| Literature DB >> 30647957 |
Mohammad Ahmad Rashad1, Ahmed Abdel Meguid Abdel Latif1, Hazem A Mostafa2, Samah Mahmoud Fawzy1, Mahmoud Abdel Meguid Abdel Latif1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Investigating the efficacy of intravitreal injection of erythropoietin (EPO) in managing indirect traumatic optic neuropathy (ITON) of different durations.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30647957 PMCID: PMC6311769 DOI: 10.1155/2018/2750632
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ophthalmol ISSN: 2090-004X Impact factor: 1.909
Patients' age and trauma duration.
| Range | Mean ± SD | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 7–50 | 23 ± 10.37 | |
| Duration | Recent trauma <3 months (7 patients) | 0.5–2.7 | 1.24 ± 0.7 |
| Old trauma ≥3 months (7 patients) | 3–36 | 16.2 ± 14.4 | |
Unpaired t-test.
Demographic and clinical data of the patients.
| Age | Duration (months) | Trauma type | BCVA in Snellen's metric notation with equivalent (LogMAR) | VER: amplitude (microns) | VER latency (microns) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline (no. 14) | After 1 injection (no. 14) | After 2 injections (no. 5) | Baseline (no. 13) | After 1 injection (no. 11) | After 2 injections (no. 4) | Baseline (no. 13) | After 1 injection (no. 13) | After 2 injections (no. 4) | |||
| 31 | 0.5 | B | NPL (3) | PL (2.5) | 6/190 (1.5) | 2.7 | 8.6 | 13 | 161 | 136 | 130.2 |
| 20 | 3 | H.T | PL (2.5) | HM (2.3) | — | 0 | 3.7 | — | 280 | 202 | — |
| 23 | 2.7 | B | 6/38 (0.8) | 6/6.75 (0.05) | — | 12.1 | 7.5 | — | 84 | 101 | — |
| 15 | 14 | FB.O | 6/600 (2) | 6/120 (1.3) | 6/60 (1) | 9.3 | 16 | 17 | 173 | 169 | 118 |
| 7 | 36 | B | PL (2.5) | HM (2.3) | HM (2.3) | 22 | 32 | 31 | 150 | 134 | 127 |
| 20 | 36 | FB.O | 6/120 (1.3) | 6/30 (0.7) | 6/30 (0.7) | 2 | 12.4 | 4.5 | 142 | 130 | 88 |
| 29 | 1.5 | FB.O | 6/120 (1.3) | 6/12 (0.3) | — | 0 | 3.5 | — | 280 | 111 | — |
| 18 | 16 | H.T | 6/380 (1.8) | 6/300 (1.7) | — | 8 | 6 | — | 160 | 110 | — |
| 30 | 1.5 | FB.O | 6/120 (1.3) | 6/12 (0.3) | — | 4 | 10 | — | 130 | 105 | — |
| 16 | 6 | FB.O | 6/120 (1.3) | 6/60 (1) | — | — | — | — | 124 | 102 | — |
| 50 | 1 | H.T | PL (2.5) | HM (2.3) | — | 1.6 | 1.7 | — | 107 | 108 | — |
| 25 | 1 | B | PL (2.5) | 6/600 (2) | — | 3.55 | 9.17 | — | 95 | 85.5 | — |
| 13 | 3 | B | 6/190 (1.5) | 6/38 (0.8) | 6/8.7 (0.16) | — | — | — | 155 | 125 | — |
| 25 | 0.3 | H.T | HM (2.3) | 6/120 (1.3) | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
BCVA LogMAR: best-corrected visual acuity in logarithm minimal angle of resolution; no.: number of patients; VER: visual evoked response. B: bullet injury to the orbit away from optic nerve. HT: head trauma from explosions or skull collision. FB.O: foreign body to the orbit away from optic nerve in bombing accident, e.g, missile particle.
Clinical data of patients before and after one injection.
| Before injection (baseline) | After one injection | Paired | Correlation ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BCVA (LogMAR) | <0.0001 |
| ||
| Mean | 1.9 ± 0.66 | 1.3 ± 0.85 | ||
| Range | 3–0.8 | 2.5–0.05 | ||
|
| ||||
| VER amplitude | 0.0154 |
| ||
| Mean | 5.9 ± 6 | 10.1 ± 8.4 | ||
| Range | 0–22 | 1.7–32 | ||
|
| ||||
| VER latency | 0.0291 |
| ||
| Mean | 156 ± 60.77 | 124.5 ± 31.44 | ||
| Range | 84–280 | 85–202 | ||
BCVA LogMAR: best-corrected visual acuity in logarithm minimal angle of resolution; VER: visual evoked response.
Comparisons of means of BCVA, VER latency, and amplitude in patients receiving two EPO injections.
| (BCVA LogMAR) 5 patients | VER latency (m·sec) 4 patients | VER amplitude (microns), 4 patients | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preinjection (baseline) | 2.1 ± 0.7 | 156.5 ± 13.48 | 9 ± 9.3 |
| After first injection | 1.5 ± 0.84 | 142.25 ± 18 | 17.3 ± 10.3 |
| After second injection | 1.13 ± 0.8 | 115.8 ± 19.24 | 16.38 ± 11 |
| Repeated measure ANOVA test |
|
|
|
| Percent of patients improved after second injection | 60% | 100% | 50% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paired t-test P value. BCVA LogMAR: best-corrected visual acuity in logarithm minimal angle of resolution; VER: visual evoked response.
Figure 1Percents of improvement in LogMAR lines after single EPO intravitreal injection (14 patients). EPO: erythropoietin.
Figure 2Percents of improvement in LogMAR lines after two EPO intravitreal injections (5 patients). EPO: erythropoietin.
Comparisons of improvement of BCVA, VER latency, and amplitude between patients of recent and old TON trauma.
| Improvement in: | Trauma <3 months | Trauma ≥3 months |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| BCVA (logMAR) (mean ± SD) | 0.72 ± 0.3 | 0.4 ± 0.26 | 0.07 |
| ≥2 lines | 100% | 86% | 0.95†† |
| ≥3 lines | 86% | 57% | 0.56†† |
| VER amplitude (mean ± SD) | 2.76 ± 4.3 | 4.36 ± 4.45 | 0.56 |
| VER latency (mean ± SD) | 35 ± 67.5 | 30.3 ± 25.7 | 0.87 |
BCVA (Log MAR): best-corrected visual acuity in LogMAR. VER: visual evoked response. Unpaired two tail t-test. ††Fisher's exact test.
Figure 3Percents of improved patients in BCVA, VER amplitude, and VER latency after EPO injection. BCVA: best-corrected visual acuity; VER †: visual evoked response.