Matias Iglicki1, Catharina Busch2, Jay Chhablani3, Dinah Zur4, Paolo Lanzetta5, Valentina Sarao5, Daniele Veritti5, Nicolò Rassu5, Marco Lupidi6,7,8, Zafer Cebeci9, Samantha Fraser-Bell10, Carolina Bernal-Morales11, Anna Sala-Puigdollers11, Javier Zarranz-Ventura11, Roberto Gallego-Pinazo12, Aniruddha Maiti13, Giuseppe D'Amico Ricci14, Patricia Udaondo15, Anat Loewenstein4. 1. Private Retina Office, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina. matiasiglicki@gmail.com. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. 3. University of Pittsburgh, UPMC Eye Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 4. Division of Ophthalmology, Tel Aviv Medical Center, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. 5. Department of Medicine-Ophthalmology, University of Udine, Piazzale S. Maria della Misericordia, 33100, Udine, Italy. 6. Department of Medicine and Surgery, Section of Ophthalmology, University of Perugia, S. Maria della Misericordia Hospital, 06156, Perugia, Italy. 7. Fondazione per la Macula Onlus, Di.N.O.G.Mi., University Eye Clinic, Viale Benedetto XV, 16132, Genova, Italy. 8. Centre de l'Odéon, 113 Boulevard St Germain, 75006, Paris, France. 9. Department of Ophthalmology, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey. 10. Department of Ophthalmology, Save Sight Institute, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 11. Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 12. Clinic Oftalvist Valencia, Valencia, Spain. 13. Susrut Eye Foundation & Research Centre Kolkata, Kolkata, India. 14. Department of Ophthalmology, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Sassari, Sassari, Italy. 15. University and Polytechnic Hospital La Fe, Valencia, Spain.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare visual and anatomical outcome in vitrectomized and non-vitrectomized eyes treated with dexamethasone (DEX) implant due to diabetic macular oedema (DMO). DESIGN: Multicenter, retrospective, interventional study. PARTICIPANTS: 236 eyes from 234 patients with DMO with or without previous vitrectomy performed with follow-up of 12 months. METHODS: Records were reviewed for cases of DMO treated with DEX implant in vitrectomized and not vitrectomized eyes. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfoveal thickness (CST), and intraocular pressure (IOP) were recorded at baseline and 12 months after treatment with DEX implants. Correlations between vitreous status and visual and anatomical outcome, as well as safety profile were analysed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: BCVA and CST over follow-up period. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: cataract rate formation, intraocular pressure increase, number of implants needed. RESULTS: The non-vitrectomized group included 130 eyes (55.1%), the vitrectomized group included 106 eyes (44.9%). The groups were well balanced for age and gender (p = 0.540, and p = 0.053, respectively). Both groups showed statistically significant improvement in BCVA and CST (for all groups: p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of change in vision (p = 0.89) and anatomy (p = 0.65). The mean number of DEX implants given during follow-up was 3.5 in both groups, and there was no significant difference between the groups (p = 0.81). CONCLUSION: We demonstrated similar anatomical and functional efficacy of DEX implant in non-vitrectomized and vitrectomized eyes. Its efficacy was not influenced by full vitrectomy for diabetic retinopathy complications. Safety profile was well balanced between groups.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare visual and anatomical outcome in vitrectomized and non-vitrectomized eyes treated with dexamethasone (DEX) implant due to diabetic macular oedema (DMO). DESIGN: Multicenter, retrospective, interventional study. PARTICIPANTS: 236 eyes from 234 patients with DMO with or without previous vitrectomy performed with follow-up of 12 months. METHODS: Records were reviewed for cases of DMO treated with DEX implant in vitrectomized and not vitrectomized eyes. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central subfoveal thickness (CST), and intraocular pressure (IOP) were recorded at baseline and 12 months after treatment with DEX implants. Correlations between vitreous status and visual and anatomical outcome, as well as safety profile were analysed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: BCVA and CST over follow-up period. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: cataract rate formation, intraocular pressure increase, number of implants needed. RESULTS: The non-vitrectomized group included 130 eyes (55.1%), the vitrectomized group included 106 eyes (44.9%). The groups were well balanced for age and gender (p = 0.540, and p = 0.053, respectively). Both groups showed statistically significant improvement in BCVA and CST (for all groups: p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of change in vision (p = 0.89) and anatomy (p = 0.65). The mean number of DEX implants given during follow-up was 3.5 in both groups, and there was no significant difference between the groups (p = 0.81). CONCLUSION: We demonstrated similar anatomical and functional efficacy of DEX implant in non-vitrectomized and vitrectomized eyes. Its efficacy was not influenced by full vitrectomy for diabetic retinopathy complications. Safety profile was well balanced between groups.
Authors: David S Boyer; David Faber; Sunil Gupta; Sunil S Patel; Homayoun Tabandeh; Xiao-Yan Li; Charlie C Liu; Jean Lou; Scott M Whitcup Journal: Retina Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Quan Dong Nguyen; David M Brown; Dennis M Marcus; David S Boyer; Sunil Patel; Leonard Feiner; Andrea Gibson; Judy Sy; Amy Chen Rundle; J Jill Hopkins; Roman G Rubio; Jason S Ehrlich Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-02-11 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: C P Wilkinson; Frederick L Ferris; Ronald E Klein; Paul P Lee; Carl David Agardh; Matthew Davis; Diana Dills; Anselm Kampik; R Pararajasegaram; Juan T Verdaguer Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 12.079