Search

ZusammenfassungDas Glaukom ist eine neurodegenerative Erkrankung, die mit der Zeit zu irreversibler Erblindung führt. Als bestimmendes Merkmal hier gilt der Verlust von retinalen Ganglienzellen (RGZ) im Auge und ihrer Axone im Sehnerv. Ein erhöhter Augeninnendruck (intraokularer Druck, IOD) gilt als Hauptrisikofaktor für die Entstehung eines Glaukoms, jedoch zeigt sich, dass dieser weder notwendig noch ausreichend für die Entstehung und das Fortschreiten der Erkrankung ist. Dies hat die Forschung und Entwicklung neuer Strategien zur Erkennung und Behandlung von Glaukomen mit dem Schwerpunkt auf Neuroprotektion – dem Schutz von RGZs vor dem Sterben – motiviert. Zusätzlich ist es im Bereich der Diagnose und Behandlung durch eine Reduktion des IOD in den letzten Jahren zur Entwicklung neuer Herangehensweisen gekommen. Dieser Artikel gibt einen Überblick über die zurzeit gängigen Theorien der pathophysiologischen Mechanismen, die einer Entstehung eines Glaukoms zugrunde liegen, sowie neuester Forschungsbemühungen mit Fokus auf Neuroprotektion und aktueller präklinischer und klinischer Studien, um eine Diagnose und Therapie des Glaukoms zu verbessern.

Purpose To characterize the visual outcomes and the treatment course of patients with exudative age-related macular degeneration (AMD) based on ocular hypotensive use. Design A matched retrospective cohort study of patients enrolled in Kaiser Permanente Southern California health plan was conducted. Patients taking ocular hypotensives were identified using pharmacy dispensing data and were matched to controls to compare visual acuity, number of anti-VEGF injections, and conversation to secondary anti-VEGF agents in the first year of treatment. Subgroup analysis was performed based on the number of ocular hypotensive agents (0, 1, 2 or 3+ agents) and drug class (aqueous suppressants and prostaglandin analogs). Results A total of 234 patients patients were examined. Baseline and final visual acuity did not significantly differ between drop users and controls, including on subgroup analysis. The average number of anti-VEGF injections did not differ between drop users and controls (6.1 vs 6.2, p=0.97), nor did the percentage of patients who were switched to a second-line anti-VEGF agent (23.9% vs 17.9%, p=0.26). Subgroup analysis did not reveal significant differences in the number of anti-VEGF injections and the percentage of patients switched to secondary agents, with patients receiving 6 ±1 injections across regardless of the number or class of ocular hypotensive agents used. Conclusion Patients with concurrent glaucoma and exudative AMD have similar visual outcomes and treatment courses compared to those not taking ocular hypotensives. Although aqueous suppressants have been suggested to prolong anti-VEGF residence time, patients using these agents did not demonstrate visual benefit or a reduced injection burden in this series.

Purpose:This study examines treatment-based outcomes of endophthalmitis due to antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) intravitreal injection and its effect on subsequent management of neovascular disease.Methods:A retrospective multicenter study was conducted of 157 patients with a diagnosis of endophthalmitis following anti-VEGF intravitreal injection at 10 major ophthalmic centers.Results:The median number of injections before endophthalmitis was 10 (range, 1 to 84 injections). Initial treatment with tap and inject with or without subsequent vitrectomy trended toward smaller visual acuity changes from baseline (4 ETDRS [Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study] letter difference vs 19 ETDRS letter difference) compared with initial vitrectomy, but the difference was not statistically significant. There was no significant change in medication choice among injections after endophthalmitis. There was a statistically significant shift away from regular interval (1- to 2-month) injections and a shift toward treat-and-extend and as-needed injection algorithms.Conclusions:The visual outcomes were not significantly different between patients who initially underwent tap and injection of antibiotics and those who underwent vitrectomy. There was no significant change in medication choice before and after endophthalmitis but there was a shift toward lower-frequency injection algorithms after postintravitreal injection endophthalmitis compared with prior.

Purpose To ascertain the incidence of unexpected management changes at the postoperative week 1 visit in asymptomatic patients who have had an uncomplicated cataract surgery and a routine postoperative day 1 examination. Design Retrospective observational study. Methods A retrospective chart review was conducted of all cases of cataract extraction by phacoemulsification with intraocular lens insertion performed by the Comprehensive Ophthalmology Service at Massachusetts Eye and Ear between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014. The preoperative consultation, operative report, and postoperative day 1 and week 1 (postoperative days 5-14) visits were reviewed. Cases with intraoperative complications, as well as clinical findings at postoperative day 1 requiring close follow-up, were excluded. The main outcome measure was incidence of unexpected management changes at the postoperative week 1 visit after cataract surgery, defined as an unanticipated change in postoperative drops, additional procedures, or urgent referral to a specialty service. Results Overall, 1938 surgical cases of 1471 patients were reviewed, and 1510 cases (77.9%) underwent uncomplicated phacoemulsification with intraocular lens implantation with a routine postoperative day 1 examination. Of these 1510 cases, 238 (15.8%) reported symptoms at the postoperative week 1 visit, including flashes, floaters, redness, pain, or decreased vision, which warranted an examination. In total, 1272 cases were asymptomatic, and only 11 of these cases (0.9%) had an unexpected management change at postoperative week 1. Eight of 11 patients were asymptomatic steroid responders requiring alteration of their postoperative drops. Two of these patients had an intraocular pressure >30 mm Hg. Conclusions Unexpected management changes at the postoperative week 1 timepoint after cataract surgery are rare in asymptomatic patients who have had uncomplicated cataract surgery and a routine postoperative day 1 examination. Limited data are available to outline an optimal postoperative regimen after cataract surgery. The results of this study suggest that postoperative week 1 examinations could potentially be performed on an as-needed basis in the appropriate subgroup of patients after cataract surgery.

Purpose To describe the characteristics and outcomes of endogenous endophthalmitis. Design Retrospective case series. Participants Patients with endogenous endophthalmitis. Methods A retrospective chart review of patients diagnosed with endogenous endophthalmitis between September 1, 2006, and November 1, 2014. Main Outcome Measures Clinical findings, treatments, microbial results, visual outcomes, and secondary ocular sequelae. Results Sixty-three patients (68 eyes) were diagnosed with endogenous endophthalmitis. Ocular symptoms were the first manifestation of disease in 76% of patients. Fungal and bacterial endophthalmitis were seen in 37% (n = 25) and 43% (n = 29) of eyes, respectively. In 47% of eyes (n = 32), the disease was associated with intravenous drug use. Eighteen percent of eyes (n = 12) underwent an initial pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with intravitreal antibiotics, none of which required a secondary intervention for acute infection. Four percent of eyes (n = 3) received only systemic treatment. Seventy-eight percent of eyes (n = 53) underwent initial bedside aspirate with intravitreal injection of antibiotics (tap-and-injection), of which 55% (n = 29) required a secondary PPV. Of eyes that underwent secondary PPV after initially negative culture results from the tap-and-injection, 52% demonstrated positive culture results at the time of secondary PPV (n = 11/21) despite all but 1 having received appropriate antimicrobial coverage initially. Fifty-four percent of eyes (n = 37) experienced secondary ocular sequelae. Eyes that received initial tap-and-injection had statistically nonsignificant better average initial vision, but worse average vision at each follow-up interval, compared to PPV while being less likely to gain 2 lines or more of vision at every follow-up interval except 6 months, with the difference reaching statistical significance at 1 week (odds ratio = 0.014; P = 0.037). Eyes that underwent initial tap-and-injection were statistically significantly more likely to require a secondary PPV (55% vs. 0%; P = 0.0006) and had fewer positive microbial results (19% vs. 67%) than those that underwent initial PPV (P = 0.002). Conclusions Most eyes that received initial tap-and-injection eventually underwent a secondary PPV. Initial PPV may have an important role in management because it was associated with better diagnostic yield and a trend toward better visual outcomes.

Purpose To present cases of endophthalmitis following intravitreal injections where povidone-iodine (PI) was not used as part of the surgical preparation. Design Retrospective case series. Methods All cases of presumed injection-related endophthalmitis presenting to the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary between June 2008 and November 2014 and Dean McGee Eye Institute between January 2010 and January 2015 were identified. Patients who did not receive PI preparation owing to documented self-reported allergy to iodine, iodine-containing contrast material, or shellfish were identified and their injection histories and clinical courses reviewed. Results The combined rate of postinjection endophthalmitis at these 2 centers was 0.019%. Among 42 patients with postinjection endophthalmitis, 5 (11.9%) did not receive PI prophylaxis. The mean number of intravitreal injections without PI before the development of endophthalmitis was 10.6 with a 9.4% rate of endophthalmitis (5 cases per 53 injections). All patients underwent tap-and-inject procedures with vancomycin 1 mg and ceftazidime 2 mg. Two patients did not receive PI at the time of tap and inject; 1 of these patients required subsequent pars plana vitrectomy for worsening clinical course. Cultures were positive in 4 of 5 cases; all positive cultures grew coagulase-negative Staphylococcus . All patients who received subsequent intravitreal injections received PI prophylaxis without allergic reactions, thus demonstrating a lack of true PI allergy. Conclusions Avoiding PI owing to self-reported iodine "allergy" risks substantial ocular morbidity. Allergy testing can be pursued per patient request or in rare cases of suspected true PI allergy; however, in cases where delayed treatment would adversely affect visual outcome, the clinician should feel confident that minimal allergic risk exists.

A 63-year-old man presented 10 days following penetrating wood injury to right eye. Exam confirmed a Zone I open globe with lens violation. He underwent primary globe closure immediately. Lens extraction was delayed due to the poor intraocular view from significant corneal edema. Inflammation was controlled medically and cataract extraction without insertion of intraocular lens was performed one month later with the corneal sutures still in place. Secondary intraocular lens implantation versus an aphakic contact lens was offered after the corneal sutures were removed; the patient deferred additional surgery and elected to seek follow-up locally. The patient’s final visual acuity was 20/50 with a +11 diopter lens and pinhole occluder.

A 53 year-old male was assaulted resulting in bilateral open globe ruptures. Post-operatively the left eye remained no light perception and the right eye remained light perception only; at 4 weeks after the initial injury, vitrectomy was attempted to reattach the retina but it was found intraoperatively to be inoperable. The patient expired 3 months later due to unrelated causes.

A 31-year-old man presented with a Zone III open globe injury of the left eye following severe blunt trauma from a hockey stick. The vision was hand motions (HM), intraocular pressure (IOP) was 5, and there was an afferent pupillary defect (APD) by reverse. During surgical exploration, the rupture was identified at the equator, approximately 15 mm posterior to the limbus. The wound ran posterior to the lateral rectus muscle insertion, which was temporarily disinserted to provide adequate exposure for wound closure. Postoperative B-scan revealed a funnel retinal detachment (RD), for which he underwent complex repair with 360 relaxing retinectomy and silicone oil tamponade. On the most recent follow-up, 8 months after injury, his vision was HM, IOP 14, and his remaining retina remained attached under oil.

To identify barriers to follow-up eye care in children who failed a visual acuity screening conducted by their primary care provider.Children aged 3-14 years who failed a visual acuity screening were identified. A phone survey with the parent of every child was conducted 4 months after the screening. Family demographics, parental awareness of childhood eye diseases and eye care for children, and barriers to follow-up eye care were assessed.Of 971 children sampled, 199 (20.5%) failed a visual acuity screening. The survey was completed by the parents of 58 children (29.1%), of whom 27 (46.6%) presented for follow-up examination. The most common reason for failure to follow-up was parental unawareness of screening results (29.3%). Follow-up rates were higher in children with previous eye examinations than in those without (81% versus 17%; P = 0.005) and in children who waited2 months for a follow-up appointment than in those who had to wait longer (100% versus 63%; P = 0.024). Child's sex, ethnicity, and health insurance status, parent's marital, education and employment status, household income, and transportation access were not associated with statistically significant different follow-up rates.Parental unawareness of a failed visual acuity screening is an important barrier to obtaining follow-up. Strategies to improve follow-up rates after a failed visual acuity screening may include communicating the results clearly and consistently, providing education about the importance of timely follow-up, and offering logistic support for accessing eye appointments to families.