International ophthalmology · 2019
Intravitreal ranibizumab versus vitrectomy for recurrent vitreous haemorrhage after pars plana vitrectomy for proliferative diabetic retinopathy: a prospective study.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Chatziralli Irini, Dimitriou Eleni, Theodossiadis George, Bourouki Evgenia, Bagli Eleni, Kitsos George, Theodossiadis Panagiotis
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare prospectively intravitreal ranibizumab treatment and pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) in patients with recurrent vitreous haemorrhage (VH) due to proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR), who were previously treated with PPV.
METHODS: Participants in this prospective study were 37 patients (37 eyes) with PDR, previously treated with PPV. All patients presented recurrent VH and were treated with either ranibizumab (n = 18) or PPV (n = 19). All participants were examined at week 2 post-treatment and every month thereafter for 1 year. Main outcomes were the need of PPV, the rate of recurrence of VH and the change in visual acuity by the end of the 12-month follow-up.
RESULTS: At month 12, there was statistically significant improvement in visual acuity in both groups compared to baseline, but the two groups did not differ regarding the change in visual acuity. In ranibizumab group, two patients presented recurrent VH during the follow-up and one patient needed PPV to clear the VH by month 12. In PPV group, two patients had mild recurrent VH, which cleared itself. No statistically significant difference was noticed regarding the rate of recurrent VH and the need of PPV between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: Intravitreal ranibizumab seems to be a safe and effective treatment alternative in patients with recurrent VH secondary to PDR, who had been previously treated with PPV.
METHODS: Participants in this prospective study were 37 patients (37 eyes) with PDR, previously treated with PPV. All patients presented recurrent VH and were treated with either ranibizumab (n = 18) or PPV (n = 19). All participants were examined at week 2 post-treatment and every month thereafter for 1 year. Main outcomes were the need of PPV, the rate of recurrence of VH and the change in visual acuity by the end of the 12-month follow-up.
RESULTS: At month 12, there was statistically significant improvement in visual acuity in both groups compared to baseline, but the two groups did not differ regarding the change in visual acuity. In ranibizumab group, two patients presented recurrent VH during the follow-up and one patient needed PPV to clear the VH by month 12. In PPV group, two patients had mild recurrent VH, which cleared itself. No statistically significant difference was noticed regarding the rate of recurrent VH and the need of PPV between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: Intravitreal ranibizumab seems to be a safe and effective treatment alternative in patients with recurrent VH secondary to PDR, who had been previously treated with PPV.