Deepak Khadka1, Konstantinos T Tsaousis2, Arjun Shrestha3, Barsha Suwal3, Nirsara Shrestha3, Samata Sharma3, Rinkal Suwal4, Bijay Khatri5. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, BP Eye Foundation, Hospital for Children, Eye, ENT, and Rehabilitation Services, Lokanthali, Madhyapur Thimi, Bhaktapur, Bagmati, Nepal. drdeepak123@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Leicester Royal Infirmary, University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, UK. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, BP Eye Foundation, Hospital for Children, Eye, ENT, and Rehabilitation Services, Lokanthali, Madhyapur Thimi, Bhaktapur, Bagmati, Nepal. 4. Department of Optometry, BP Eye Foundation, Hospital for Children, Eye, ENT, and Rehabilitation Services, Lokanthali, Madhyapur Thimi, Bhaktapur, Bagmati, Nepal. 5. Academic and Research Department, BP Eye Foundation, Hospital for Children, Eye, ENT, and Rehabilitation Services, Lokanthali, Madhyapur Thimi, Bhaktapur, Bagmati, Nepal.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To find out clinical characteristics, therapeutic options, and visual outcome in symptomatic retinal artery macroaneurysm (RAMA) patients. METHOD: Newly diagnosed cases of symptomatic RAMA from January 2015 to December 2019 were included. Fifteen eyes of 15 patients with mean age 62.46 years ± 14.89 (SD) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. RESULT: Hypertension was present in 66.6% of the patients, and the commonest site was superotemporal (12 eyes, 80%). The most commonly employed treatment was Nd: Yag laser hyaloidotomy in 4 eyes (26.6%). Other treatments were intravitreal bevacizumab in 3 eyes (20%), focal laser with intravitreal bevacizumab in 3 eyes (20%), PPV with focal laser (13.3%) in 2, focal laser only in one (6.6%), PPV with focal and intravitreal bevacizumab in one (6.6%). The mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at baseline was 1.35 ± 0.84 LogMAR, which improved to 0.39 ± 0.53 LogMAR at the last follow-up. Presenting VA 0.77 (±0.40) improved to 0.20 (±0.17) p value (0.180) in intravitreal bevacizumab only group, 1.29 (±0.35) to 0.75 (±0.15) p value 0.66 in Nd: Yag laser group, 2.67 (±0.58) to 0.46 (±0.28) p value 0.019 in PPV group and did not improve in combined anti-VEGF and focal laser group due to dense hard exudates at the fovea in one and persistent cystoid macular edema in another case. CONCLUSION: With regard to its presentation, which can vary tremendously, there are no approved guidelines for its treatment. The present study reinforces the need for a treatment guideline development. Customization of treatment should be considered depending on the clinical presentation of each case.
PURPOSE: To find out clinical characteristics, therapeutic options, and visual outcome in symptomatic retinal artery macroaneurysm (RAMA) patients. METHOD: Newly diagnosed cases of symptomatic RAMA from January 2015 to December 2019 were included. Fifteen eyes of 15 patients with mean age 62.46 years ± 14.89 (SD) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. RESULT: Hypertension was present in 66.6% of the patients, and the commonest site was superotemporal (12 eyes, 80%). The most commonly employed treatment was Nd: Yag laser hyaloidotomy in 4 eyes (26.6%). Other treatments were intravitreal bevacizumab in 3 eyes (20%), focal laser with intravitreal bevacizumab in 3 eyes (20%), PPV with focal laser (13.3%) in 2, focal laser only in one (6.6%), PPV with focal and intravitreal bevacizumab in one (6.6%). The mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at baseline was 1.35 ± 0.84 LogMAR, which improved to 0.39 ± 0.53 LogMAR at the last follow-up. Presenting VA 0.77 (±0.40) improved to 0.20 (±0.17) p value (0.180) in intravitreal bevacizumab only group, 1.29 (±0.35) to 0.75 (±0.15) p value 0.66 in Nd: Yag laser group, 2.67 (±0.58) to 0.46 (±0.28) p value 0.019 in PPV group and did not improve in combined anti-VEGF and focal laser group due to dense hard exudates at the fovea in one and persistent cystoid macular edema in another case. CONCLUSION: With regard to its presentation, which can vary tremendously, there are no approved guidelines for its treatment. The present study reinforces the need for a treatment guideline development. Customization of treatment should be considered depending on the clinical presentation of each case.
Authors: Lea Scheppke; Edith Aguilar; Ray F Gariano; Ruth Jacobson; John Hood; John Doukas; Jon Cao; Glenn Noronha; Shiyin Yee; Sara Weis; Michael B Martin; Richard Soll; David A Cheresh; Martin Friedlander Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 14.808