Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2023
Distance and near vision changes after intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injection in eyes with center-involving diabetic macular edema.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Rajasekar Loheshwari Kuppuraj, Kashyap Himanshu, Nadig Ramya R, Jaisankar Durgasri, Sathyaprasath Mathangi, Laxmi Gella, Raman Rajiv
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To elucidate distance and near vision changes after intravitreal injections in center-involving diabetic macular edema (CIDME) in phakic and pseudophakic groups.
METHODS: A retrospective study was done on 148 eyes (72 phakic and 76 pseudophakic) with center-involving DME. All eyes were treated with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injection. All patients underwent distance best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) testing, near BCVA testing, dilated fundus examination, and optical coherence tomography (OCT) at baseline and follow-up visits. Eyes that could not improve after the first injection were given 2nd, 3rd, and more injections in the subsequent visits.
RESULTS: On follow-up, post injections in the phakic group (n = 72), there were 65 eyes (90.3%) with stable/improved near vision and 59 eyes (81.9%) with stable/improved distance vision, whereas in the pseudophakic group (n = 76), 63 eyes (82.9%) and 60 eyes (78.9%), respectively. Both in phakic and pseudophakic eyes, 7.7%-13% of the cohort showed only near vision improvement.
CONCLUSION: In DME, besides the changes in distance vision, there are also changes in near vision. These changes should be taken into account while determining the response to anti-VEGF in DME treatment.
METHODS: A retrospective study was done on 148 eyes (72 phakic and 76 pseudophakic) with center-involving DME. All eyes were treated with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injection. All patients underwent distance best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) testing, near BCVA testing, dilated fundus examination, and optical coherence tomography (OCT) at baseline and follow-up visits. Eyes that could not improve after the first injection were given 2nd, 3rd, and more injections in the subsequent visits.
RESULTS: On follow-up, post injections in the phakic group (n = 72), there were 65 eyes (90.3%) with stable/improved near vision and 59 eyes (81.9%) with stable/improved distance vision, whereas in the pseudophakic group (n = 76), 63 eyes (82.9%) and 60 eyes (78.9%), respectively. Both in phakic and pseudophakic eyes, 7.7%-13% of the cohort showed only near vision improvement.
CONCLUSION: In DME, besides the changes in distance vision, there are also changes in near vision. These changes should be taken into account while determining the response to anti-VEGF in DME treatment.