Objective To observe the clinical features and outcomes of vitrectomy for diabetic retinopathy (DR) with central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods A total of 192 patients (241 eyes) with proliferative DR (PDR) who underwent vitrectomy were enrolled in this study. All the patients were diagnosed as vitreous hemorrhage (VH) because of suddenly decreased vision. There were 93 eyes with tractional retinal detachment (TRD) and six eyes with neovascularization of iris (NVI). The patients were divided into PDR with CRVO group (group A, 41 eyes) and PDR group (group B, 200 eyes) according to the results of fundus examination. All patients received vitrectomy with silicone oil and C3F8 gas tamponade. There were 138 eyes with silicone oil tamponade which including 30 eyes in group A and 108 eyes in group B. The difference of number in silicone oil-filled eyes in two groups was statistically significant (chi;2=5.110,P＜0.05). There were 38 eyes with C3F8 gas tamponade which including six eyes in group A and 32 eyes in group B. There was no difference in C3F8 gas-filled eyes numbers in two groups (chi;2=0.048, P＞0.05). The follow-up ranged from one to 60 months, with the mean of (28.69plusmn;17.28) months. The corrected vision, retinal reattachment, persisting macular edema (ME), neovascular glaucoma (NVG) and repeated VH after surgery were comparatively analyzed. Results Of 241 eyes, there were 41 eyes (17.0%) with CRVO. Before surgery, the differences of corrected vision (Z=-0.138), intraocular pressure (t=0.966), whether there was TRD or not (chi;2=0.412), whether underwent panretinal photocoagulation or not (chi;2=1.416) were not statistically significant (P＞0.05), but the difference of whether NVI were present or not was statistically significant (chi;2=31.724,P＜0.05) between two groups. After surgery, the corrected vision improved in both two groups (Z=2.319, 4.589; P＜0.05). There was no difference of corrected vision after surgery between two groups (Z=0.782,P＞0.05). Postoperative complications occurred in 94 eyes, including 26 eyes in group A and 68 eyes in group B. The differences of incidence of reoperation (chi;2=0.498), retinal reattachment (chi;2=0.818), persisting ME (chi;2=2.722) between two groups after surgery were not statistically significant (P＞0.05). The incidence of repeated VH (chi;2=5.737) and NVG (chi;2=6.604) in group A were higher than those in group B (P＜0.05). Conclusions CRVO is commonly found to coexist with DR in T2DM patients with VH. Combined with CRVO patients are more likely to suffer NVI. Vitrectomy can improve the visual function in PDR with CRVO patients.
Objective To observe the preventive and therapeutic effect of different times, spot reactions and spot density of argon laser photocoagulation on retinal neovas cularization of ischemic retinal vein occlusion (IRVO).Meth9al of 244 patients (268 eyes) with IRVO diagnosed by fundus fluorescein angiography (FFA) were treated by HGM argon laser photocoagulator with green-blue light with 200~500 μm lightspot, 0.1~0.5 s, 0.3~1.0 w, and II~III class spot reaction . All capillary nonperfusion areas (CNA) were photocoagulated, and so were the retinal neovascularization in some patients. The follow up periods were from 6 to 60 months. After 3 and 24 weeks after photocoagulation FFA was performed again. Photocoagulation was performed supplementarilly for the new CNA or incompletely photocoagulated areas. Ophthalmoscopic examination and FFA were performed in all the patients after half a year.Results Only 17 eyes (10.6%) with neovascularization were found after preventive photocoagulation in 160 eyes in non-neovacularization group. Sixty-nine eyes(63.9%) with neovascular atrophy and 39 eyes (36 .1%) with unsuccessful photocoagulation were found after therapeutic photocoagulation in 108 eyes in neovascularization group. There was statistical significance between the two groups (P＜0.01). Photocoagulation energy with reaction of III class and density of 1 lightspot diameter was more effective than which with reaction of II~III class and density of 1.5 lightspot diameter or reaction of ≤II class and density of 2 lightspot diameter (P＜0.01). Conclusion Efficacy of preventive photocoagulation is better than which of therapeutic photocoagulation. Photocoagulation energy with reaction of III class and density of 1 lightspot diameter is an effective method for IRVO.(Chin J Ocul Fundus Dis，2003，19：201-268)
ObjectiveTo investigate the efficacy and safety of intravitreal ranibizumab and (or) triamcinolone combined with laser photocoagulation for macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) during one year period. MethodsThe data of 31 eyes from 31 consecutive patients with macular edema secondary to BRVO during one year follow-up visit were retrospectively analyzed. Mean best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) logMAR was (0.74±0.36) and mean central retinal thickness (CRT) was (484.48±164.81)μm at baseline. All patients received standardized clinical comprehensive examinations including vision, intraocular pressure and optical coherence tomography for diagnosis before treatment. All patients received intravitreal injections of 0.5 mg ranibizumab (0.05 ml) at first visit. The continue PRN treatment were based on the visual acuity changes and the optical coherence tomography findings. Eyes received combined triamcinolone acetonide 0.05 ml (40 mg/ml) and ranibizumab for macular edema recurrence after two injections of ranibizumab and received laser photocoagulation during 10-14 days after third injections of ranibizumab. Mean injection of ranibizumab was 3.52±2.01, 15 eyes with triamcinolone acetonide (0.84±1.21), 21 eyes with laser photocoagulation (0.97±0.95) and 12 eyes with three treatment. Compared the visual acuities and CRTs of the first and the last visits by statistical analysis. ResultsMean visual acuity improved significantly to 0.42±0.33 logMAR (t=6.611, P=0.000). Mean improvement of visual acuity was 2.90±3.07 lines. A gain of three or more logarithmic lines was evaluated in 20/31 eyes (64.52%) at the last visit. Mean CRT was (326.19±117.80)μm (t=4.514, P=0.000).Mean reduction of CRT was (333.58±134.17)μm. A decrease of 100μm of CRT was evaluated in 17/31 eyes (54.84%). No severe ocular and systematic side effect was found. ConclusionThe efficacy and safety of intravitreal ranibizumab and (or) triamcinolone combined with laser photocoagulation for macular edema secondary to BRVO were assured.
Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of repeated intravitreal conbercept injection in patients with macular edema (ME) of retinal vein occlusion (RVO), guided by optic coherence tomography (OCT). Methods It is a retrospective case study. Forty patients (40 eyes) diagnosed as ME secondary to RVO were enrolled in this study. There were 19 males (19 eyes) and 21 females (21 eyes), with the mean age of (53.58±13.19) years and the mean course of 1.5 months. The best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), indirect ophthalmoscopy, fundus fluorescein angiography (FFA) and OCT were performed. The mean baseline of BCVA, central macular thickness (CMT) were 0.25±0.18 and (509.48±170.13) μm respectively. All the patients were treated with 10.00 mg/ml conbercept 0.05 ml (including conbercept 0.5 mg). Follow-up of these patients was 1 to 6 months after treatments, the BCVA, fundus manifestations, OCT were retrospectively observed by every month, the FFA was retrospectively observed by every 3 months. When there was retinal edema or CMT ≥50 μm by OCT during follow-up, those patients were retreated with intravitreal conbercept injection. The changes of the BCVA, CMT were evaluated before and after treatment. Meanwhile, complications in eyes related to medicine and treatment methods were evaluated too. Results At the 6 months, the BCVA was improved (increase≥2 lines) in 25 eyes (62.50%), stabilized (±1 line) in 13 eyes (32.50%) and decreased 2 lines in 2 eyes (5.00%). Retinal hemorrhage and exudates were absorbed in most patients. FFA showed no fluorescein leakage in 11 eyes (27.50%), minor fluorescein leakage in 26 eyes (65.00%), and retinal capillary non-perfusion in 3 eyes (7.50%). OCT showed absorption of the subretinal fluid. The mean CMT were (235.20±100.44) μm at 6 months. Intravitreal injection of conbercept was applied for 4 times in 8 eyes (20.00%), 3 times for 18 eyes (45.00%), and 2 times for 14 eyes (35.00%). The mean number of intravitreal injection was 2.85 times. There were no ocular or systemic adverse events observed in all patients. Conclusion Intravitreal conbercept injection is an efficacy and safe treatment for the patients with ME of RVO guided by OCT. It can stabilize and improve the visual acuity.
Objective The present study focus on the macular branch retinal vein occlusion (MBRVO) with and without laser treatment,and evaluate prospectively whether laser treatment is useful in improving the visual acuity and reducing the macular edema. At the same time to learn the difference of macular light sensitivity before and after laser treatment.Methods Forty-five eyes of forty-five patients with MBRVO and macular edema were randomized to laser treatment and no laser treatment. Follow up examinations were performed every 3 months. We compared the difference of visual improvement, resolution of macular edema between the two groups. The central 30°visual field of 20 patients with MBRVO were examined at pretreatment and 3 months after laser treatment. A comparison of light sensitivity at fovea ，central 10°and 11~30°eccentricity were done between before and after laser treatment. Results Comparison of visual improvement and resolution of macular edema showed a statistical difference between laser treatment and no laser treatment. The mean reduction of macular light sensitivity at the fovea and 11~30°3 months after the treatment has no statistical difference between before and after treatment (Pgt;0.05). But the mean light sensitivity at central 10°eccentricity were significantly decreased 3 months after photocoagulation (Plt;0.05).Conclusion The laser treatment might promote or accelerate visual acuity recovery and reduce the macular edema. There is no significant difference about the efficiency on macular function after laser treatment.(Chin J Ocul Fundus Dis，2003，19：201-268)