Ocular immunology and inflammation · 2026
Posterior Vitrectomy in Uveitis: Experience from a Tertiary Referral Center in Colombia.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Rangel Carlos Mario, Mejía-Salgado Germán, Duarte-Bueno Laura M, Torres Parada Laura, Gómez Rocha María Alejandra, Restrepo Arango Marcos
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To describe the outcomes of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) in patients with uveitis, including changes in visual acuity, inflammatory control, and macular edema status, in a sample from Colombia.
METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted on 27 eyes from 27 patients with uveitis who underwent PPV at a tertiary referral center. PPV was not performed as primary treatment for active uveitis; instead, it was undertaken only when postponement posed a risk of irreversible visual loss due to structural complications or when diagnostic clarification was urgently required. Aqueous/vitreous sampling was performed with PPV when indicated for etiologic evaluation. Collected data included demographics, uveitis classification, surgical indication, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months in LogMAR, inflammatory activity (defined with vitreous haze and anterior chamber cellularity) one month postoperatively, and cystoid macular edema (CME) status six months after PPV.
RESULTS: PPV was therapeutic in 20 eyes (74.1%), whereas in 7 cases (25.9%), it was performed with vitreous sampling. Mean baseline BCVA was 1.37 ± 1.06 and improved to 0.63 ± 0.70 at final follow-up. A gain of ≥0.3 was achieved in 14 eyes (51.9%) at one month and 17 eyes (63.0%) at 6 months. At one month, 26 eyes (96.2%) had a clear vitreous cavity. CME was present in only 3 eyes (11%) at six months postoperatively.
CONCLUSION: In this sample, PPV demonstrated its utility for clarifying uncertain uveitis etiology, no deterioration, and, in some cases, improvement of visual acuity, and enabling adequate visualization for the evaluation and monitoring of CME.
METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted on 27 eyes from 27 patients with uveitis who underwent PPV at a tertiary referral center. PPV was not performed as primary treatment for active uveitis; instead, it was undertaken only when postponement posed a risk of irreversible visual loss due to structural complications or when diagnostic clarification was urgently required. Aqueous/vitreous sampling was performed with PPV when indicated for etiologic evaluation. Collected data included demographics, uveitis classification, surgical indication, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months in LogMAR, inflammatory activity (defined with vitreous haze and anterior chamber cellularity) one month postoperatively, and cystoid macular edema (CME) status six months after PPV.
RESULTS: PPV was therapeutic in 20 eyes (74.1%), whereas in 7 cases (25.9%), it was performed with vitreous sampling. Mean baseline BCVA was 1.37 ± 1.06 and improved to 0.63 ± 0.70 at final follow-up. A gain of ≥0.3 was achieved in 14 eyes (51.9%) at one month and 17 eyes (63.0%) at 6 months. At one month, 26 eyes (96.2%) had a clear vitreous cavity. CME was present in only 3 eyes (11%) at six months postoperatively.
CONCLUSION: In this sample, PPV demonstrated its utility for clarifying uncertain uveitis etiology, no deterioration, and, in some cases, improvement of visual acuity, and enabling adequate visualization for the evaluation and monitoring of CME.