Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024
Long-Standing Macula-Involving Diabetic Tractional Retinal Detachments with Good Visual Acuity: How Should We Manage These Patients?
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.
Rush Ryan B, Rush Sloan W
Аннотация
PURPOSE: We assess the merits of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) in subjects with good visual acuity (VA) and a chronic macula-involving tractional retinal detachment (TRD) secondary to proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR).
METHODS: A retrospective review of medical records was undertaken. Subjects were divided into 1) a Study Group of subjects who underwent prompt PPV and 2) a Control Group of subjects in which PPV was deferred in favor of less invasive treatment options or observations. Both study and control subjects had a baseline Snellen VA of ≥20/50 and a PDR-associated macula-involving TRD of >6 months duration with a minimum follow-up of 12-months.
RESULTS: There were 58 patients analyzed over an average follow-up period of 27.6 (±7.1) months. The change in VA was similar in the Study Group compared to the Control Group (p=0.94) with both groups losing about three lines of VA during the study period (-0.30 ±0.52 logMAR). Although the rates of maintaining ≥20/200 Snellen VA and ≥20/50 Snellen VA were similar in the Study Group compared to the Control Group (p=0.55 and p=0.28, respectively), the Study Group had more subjects gaining ≥2 lines of VA during the study period (p=0.002).
CONCLUSION: Patients presenting with good VA and a PDR-associated macula-involving TRD of >6 months were more likely to gain ≥2 lines of VA when PPV was performed at baseline compared to PPV deferral until further deterioration occurred.
METHODS: A retrospective review of medical records was undertaken. Subjects were divided into 1) a Study Group of subjects who underwent prompt PPV and 2) a Control Group of subjects in which PPV was deferred in favor of less invasive treatment options or observations. Both study and control subjects had a baseline Snellen VA of ≥20/50 and a PDR-associated macula-involving TRD of >6 months duration with a minimum follow-up of 12-months.
RESULTS: There were 58 patients analyzed over an average follow-up period of 27.6 (±7.1) months. The change in VA was similar in the Study Group compared to the Control Group (p=0.94) with both groups losing about three lines of VA during the study period (-0.30 ±0.52 logMAR). Although the rates of maintaining ≥20/200 Snellen VA and ≥20/50 Snellen VA were similar in the Study Group compared to the Control Group (p=0.55 and p=0.28, respectively), the Study Group had more subjects gaining ≥2 lines of VA during the study period (p=0.002).
CONCLUSION: Patients presenting with good VA and a PDR-associated macula-involving TRD of >6 months were more likely to gain ≥2 lines of VA when PPV was performed at baseline compared to PPV deferral until further deterioration occurred.