4.0 Article

Treatment of refractory diabetic macular edema with a fluocinolone acetonide implant in vitrectomized and non-vitrectomized eyes

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 11, Issue 12, Pages 1951-1956

Publisher

IJO PRESS
DOI: 10.18240/ijo.2018.12.13

Keywords

diabetic macular edema; fluocinolone acetonidc; intravitreal implant; steroid; vitrectomy

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIM: To report real-life data on the use of an intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant in the treatment of refractory diabetic macular edema (DME) in pars plana vitrectomized (PPV) and non-PPV eyes. METHODS: This was a comparative retrospective observational study of 23 eyes with chronic DME. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) were recorded at baseline, 1, 4 and 12mo. Descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests were performed to analyze and compare PPV and non-PPV eyes. RESULTS: Seven PPV and 16 non-PPV eyes were included in the study. Median BCVA in the non-PPV group varied from 0.65 logMAR [Interquartile range (IQR): 0.40] at baseline to 0.42 log MAR (IQR: 0.40) at 12mo. Median CMT varied from 430 mu m (IQR: 131.3) at baseline to 317 mu m (IQR: 107.5) at 12mo. Median BCVA in the PPV group varied from 0.60 logMAR (IQR: 0.62) at baseline to 0.74 logMAR (IQR: 0.34) at 12mo. Median CMT varied from 483 mu m (IQR: 146) at baseline to 397 mu m (IQR: 132) at 12mo. Of 0/7 eyes and 1/16 eyes in the PPV and non-PPV eyes respectively had a baseline visual acuity of 6/12 or better (0.3 logMAR). At last follow up, 1/7 and 5/16 eyes in the PPV and non-PPV group respectively achieved a visual acuity of 6/12 or better. CONCLUSION: Visual outcomes are modest following the use of the fluocinolone acetonide implant for chronic DME. The steroid implant is a useful treatment option in the management of refractory DME in vitrectomized and non-vitrectmized eyes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available