Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2019
Current practice in the management of branch retinal vein occlusion in Japan: Survey results of retina specialists in Japan.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ogura Yuichiro, Kondo Mineo, Kadonosono Kazuaki, Shimura Masahiko, Kamei Motohiro, Tsujikawa Akitaka
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To elucidate the current clinical practice patterns of branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) management by retina specialists in Japan in the era of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy.
STUDY DESIGN: A voting survey using an answer pad system.
METHODS: On May 28, 2017, forty-one retina specialists were surveyed on the pathology and clinical practice of BRVO management.
RESULTS: Most specialists (77.5%) use fundus examination and optical coherence tomography (OCT) for diagnosis of macular edema (ME) secondary to BRVO. All assess the condition of the ellipsoid zone (EZ) and external limiting membrane (ELM) and consider this a visual prognostic factor. For ME secondary to BRVO, anti-VEGF therapy is the first choice, and most specialists (82.4%) select initial injection followed by a pro re nata (PRN) regimen. For switching to other treatment options for persistent cases, combination therapy of anti-VEGF injections and laser therapy is the most common choice (35.9%), whereas 25.6% select vitreous surgery and 15.4% select adding steroid injections.
CONCLUSIONS: Our survey presents the current opinions on the diagnosis and treatment of BRVO by retina specialists in Japan, and reveals the common views about damage to the EZ/ELM as a factor of poor prognosis and anti-VEGF therapy as the first line treatment, highlighting various opinions on initiation and switching of therapy.
STUDY DESIGN: A voting survey using an answer pad system.
METHODS: On May 28, 2017, forty-one retina specialists were surveyed on the pathology and clinical practice of BRVO management.
RESULTS: Most specialists (77.5%) use fundus examination and optical coherence tomography (OCT) for diagnosis of macular edema (ME) secondary to BRVO. All assess the condition of the ellipsoid zone (EZ) and external limiting membrane (ELM) and consider this a visual prognostic factor. For ME secondary to BRVO, anti-VEGF therapy is the first choice, and most specialists (82.4%) select initial injection followed by a pro re nata (PRN) regimen. For switching to other treatment options for persistent cases, combination therapy of anti-VEGF injections and laser therapy is the most common choice (35.9%), whereas 25.6% select vitreous surgery and 15.4% select adding steroid injections.
CONCLUSIONS: Our survey presents the current opinions on the diagnosis and treatment of BRVO by retina specialists in Japan, and reveals the common views about damage to the EZ/ELM as a factor of poor prognosis and anti-VEGF therapy as the first line treatment, highlighting various opinions on initiation and switching of therapy.