Objective To study and compare the clinical efficacy between intravitreal conbercept injection and (or) macular grid pattern photocoagulation in treating macular edema secondary to non-ischemic branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). Methods Ninety eyes of 90 patients diagnosed as macular edema secondary to non-ischemic BRVO were enrolled in this study. Forty-eight patients (48 eyes) were male and 42 patients (42 eyes) were female. The average age was (51.25±12.24) years and the course was 5–17 days. All patients were given best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), intraocular pressure, slit lamp with preset lens, fluorescence fundus angiography (FFA) and optic coherent tomography (OCT) examination. The patients were divided into conbercept and laser group (group Ⅰ), laser group (group Ⅱ) and conbercept group (group Ⅲ), with 30 eyes in each group. The BCVA and central macular thickness (CMT) in the three groups at baseline were statistically no difference (F=0.072, 0.286;P=0.930, 0.752). Patients in group Ⅰ received intravitreal injection of 0.05 ml of 10.00 mg/ml conbercept solution (conbercept 0.5 mg), and macular grid pattern photocoagulation 3 days later. Group Ⅱ patients were given macular grid pattern photocoagulation. Times of injection between group Ⅰ and Ⅲ, laser energy between group Ⅰ and Ⅱ, changes of BCVA and CMT among 3 groups at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months and 6 months after treatment were compared. Results Patients in group Ⅰ and Ⅲ had received conbercept injections (1.20±0.41) and (2.23±1.04) times respectively, and 6 eyes (group Ⅰ) and 22 eyes (group Ⅲ) received 2-4 times re-injections. The difference of injection times between two groups was significant (P＜0.001). Patients in group Ⅱ had received photocoagulation (1.43±0.63) times, 9 eyes had received twice photocoagulation and 2 eyes had received 3 times of photocoagulation. The average laser energy was (96.05±2.34) μV in group Ⅰ and (117.41±6.85) μV in group Ⅱ, the difference was statistical significant (P=0.003). BCVA improved in all three groups at last follow-up. However, the final visual acuity in group Ⅰ and group Ⅲ were better than in group Ⅱ (t=4.607, –4.603;P＜0.001) and there is no statistical significant difference between group Ⅲ and group Ⅰ (t=–0.802,P=0.429). The mean CMT reduced in all three groups after treating for 1 week and 1 month, comparing that before treatment (t=–11.855, –10.620, –10.254;P＜0.001). There was no statistical difference of CMT between group Ⅰand Ⅲ at each follow up (t=0.404, 1.723, –1.819, –1.755;P=0.689, 0.096, 0.079, 0.900). CMT reduction in group Ⅰ was more than that in group Ⅱ at 1 week and 1 month after treatments (t=–4.621, –3.230;P＜0.001, 0.003). The CMT in group Ⅲ at 3 month after treatment had increased slightly comparing that at 1 month, but the difference was not statistically significant (t=1.995,P=0.056). All patients had no treatment-related complications, such as endophthalmitis, rubeosis iridis and retinal detachment. Conclusions Intravitreal conbercept injection combined with macular grid pattern photocoagulation is better than macular grid pattern photocoagulation alone in treating macular edema secondary to non-ischemic BRVO. Combined therapy also reduced injection times comparing to treatment using conbercept injection without laser photocoagulation.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling and subretinal injection of balance salt solution (BSS) for refractory diabetic macular edema (DME).MethodsA retrospective case series study. From November 2017 to August 2018, 24 eyes of 19 patients affected with DME resistant to anti-VEGF therapy [central macualar thickness (CMT) more than 275 μm despite undergoing anti-VEGF therapy at least 3 times] in Ophtalmology Department of Central Theater Command General Hospital of Chinese People's Liberation Army were enrolled in this study. All the patients underwent 25G pars plana vitrectomy with ILM peeling and subretinal injection of BSS. The BCVA was measured using the international standard visual acuity chart, and the results were converted to the logMAR visual acuity. The CMT and the macular volume (MV) were assessed with swept-source optical coherence tomography at baseline and each month postoperatively. The differences in BCVA, CMT and MV before and after surgery were analyzed.ResultsThe mean BCVA was 0.74±0.29 at baseline, which increased significantly to 0.62±0.28, 0.56±0.25, 0.47±0.26, 0.46±0.23 at 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months and 6 months after treatment respectively (F=4.828, P=0.001). At 6 months, BCVA improved by more than 0.3 logMAR units in 16 eyes (66.7%). The mean CMT was 554.58±102.86 μm at baseline, which reduced to 338.17±58.09 μm, 299.42±52.66 μm, 275.75±41.24 μm and 270.96±38.33 μm at 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months and 6 months after treatment respectively (F=84.867, P＜0.001). The mean MV was 13.01±0.88 mm3 at baseline, which decreased to 11.50±0.73 mm3, 11.00±0.74 mm3, 10.68±0.61 mm3 and 10.52±0.56 mm3 at 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months and 6 months after treatment respectively (F=47.364, P＜0.001). Macular edema recurred in 5 eyes (20.8%) 6 months after surgery. No severe systemic or ocular side effect was reported during the follow-up.Conclusions25G vitrectomy with ILM peeling and subretinal injection of BSS for refractory DME can improve the visual acuity, facilitate a rapid resolution of macular edema.
Diabetic macular edema (DME) is the most common retinopathy that seriously threatens the visual function of diabetic patients, and it represents a major cause of blindness especially among people in working age. Ocular VEGF inhibitors are most often used as a first line therapy for DME, and have revolutionary significance in improving visual outcomes. However, there remain 30%-50% patients who fail to respond to anti-VEGF treatment, and the need for frequent injections brings a substantial treatment burden to patients and society. Novel therapeutic strategies include improving efficacy and duration of anti-VEGF drugs, targeting inflammation, the plasma kallikrein–kinin system, the angiopoietin-Tie2 system, neurodegeneration and other alternative pathways, as well as using subthreshold and targeted laser therapy. It is still challenging in the individualized management of DME to identify non-responders to anti-VEGF drugs and to establish a standardized regimen for the switch from anti-VEGF therapy to anti-inflammatory or other alternative treatment. Further research and development of new therapies, as well as preventive and screening strategies, are needed to reduce the impact of diabetic retinopathy and DME on public health.
Objective To observe the visual acuity change in patients with different patterns of optical coherence tomography (OCT) of diabetic macular edema (DME) after intravitreal ranibizumab injection and/or laser photocoagulation. Methods A retrospective observational case series. Seventy patients (99 eyes) with DME were enrolled. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was evaluated using the international vision test chart, and then convert the result to the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR). According to the morphological characteristics of OCT, the DME was divided into 3 patterns, including diffuse macular edema (DRT), cystoid macular edema (CME) and serous neuroepithelial layer detachment. The average follow-up was (80.43±74.89) days. The patients were divided into 3 groups according to the different treatments, including intravitreal ranibizumab injection group (group A, 21 patients, 25 eyes), intravitreal ranibizumab injection and laser photocoagulation group (group B, 23 patients, 26 eyes), laser photocoagulation group (group C, 26 patients, 48 eyes). The changes of absolute BCVA (ABCVA) and improved visual acuity were compared between different treatment groups and different OCT patterns. ABCVA = logMAR BCVA before treatment－logMAR BCVA after treatment. Improvement more than 0.3 of logMAR value was considered as improved visual acuity. Results There was no significant difference in ABCVA between different treatment groups (F=0.050,P＞0.05). The improved visual acuity in group A and B were great than group C (χ2=5.645, 6.301;P＜0.05). In group A, B and C, there was no significant difference in ABCVA and improved visual acuity between different OCT patterns (P＞0.05). Improved visual acuity of DRT and CME eyes were higher in group A&B (70.59% and 50.00%) than in group C (26.47% and 14.29%), the difference was statistically significant (χ2=5.075, 4.453;P＜0.05). Conclusions There is no obvious change of visual acuity in patients with different OCT patterns of DME after the same treatment by intravitreal ranibizumab injection and/or laser photocoagulation. The improved visual acuity is not consistent in same OCT patterns after different treatment.
Pharmaceutical therapy, including anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment and intravitreal corticosteroids, is the most common treatment for branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) and its complications, however there are confusing ideas about the protocol, patient selection, timing and endpoint of this treatment. The disease is easy to relapse with these drugs therapy. Collateral vessel formation was found in patients receiving intravitreal injection of ranibizumab or triamcinolone for BRVO and secondary macular edema. The mechanism of collateral vessel formation has not been carefully investigated. In the past thrombolysis, arteriovenous fasciostomy and laser choroidal retinal vascular anastomosis were used to reconstruct the retinal circulation, but their rationality, effectiveness and safety need to be further were studied. In recent years, because of the key technology is still immature, the artificial vascular bypass surgery experiment is not yet practical, but provides us a new idea worth looking forward to for the treatment of BRVO.
Macular edema is a common cause of visual loss in patients with retinal vascular diseases represented by diabetic retinopathy and retinal vein occlusion. Laser photocoagulation has been the main treatment for this kind of diseases for decades. With the advent of antagonist of vascular endothelial growth factor and dexamethasone implant, diabetic macular edema and macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion have been well controlled; the use of laser therapy is decreasing. However, considering possible risks and complications, lack of extended inspection of efficacy and safety of intravitreal pharmacotherapy, laser therapy cannot be replaced by now. Therefore, the efficacy and safety of laser therapy will improve by sober realization of role of photocoagulation and proper selection of treatment indication.