Preserflo Microshunt Surgery for Ocular Hypertension following Intravitreal Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant Removal: A Case Report

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is now a well-known condition for which a number of treatments have been shown to be effective. Intraocular corticosteroids are part of this therapeutic arsenal but are sometimes responsible for ocular hypertension. We describe here the case of a 60-year-old man with a history of bilateral DME who received an intravitreal injection of 190 µg fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) (ILUVIEN®, Alimera Sciences, Alpharetta, GA, USA) who presented a persistent ocular hypertension in one eye despite FAc removal by pars plana vitrectomy and was successfully managed by Preserflo® microshunt surgery

Intra-Ocular Pressure Response to Dexamethasone Implant Injections in Patients with a History of Filtering Surgery: The TRABEX Study

Patients with both macular edemas, of various etiologies such as diabetes and glaucoma, may suffer serious loss of vision if either disease goes untreated. Where no effective alternative therapies are available, dexamethasone implant (DEX-I) injections may be the only choice of treatment, despite the risk of a possible increase in intraocular pressure (IOP) when using steroids. Although many studies have reported on IOP evolution in eyes treated with DEX-I, little is known specifically about eyes with a history of filtering surgery. The aim of this observational series was to evaluate the IOP response following DEX-I injection in eyes presenting conventional filtering surgeries or microinvasive glaucoma surgeries (MIGS). Twenty-five eyes were included in this study. A total of 64% of the eyes did not experience OHT during follow-up. Additional IOP-lowering therapy was needed for 32% of eyes, and 20% of eyes (all showing bleb fibrosis) required further filtering surgery: 50% of eyes in the MIGS group and 10.5% of eyes in the conventional filtering surgery group. A significant positive correlation was found between IOP at baseline and the maximum IOP throughout follow-ups after DEX-I (r = 0.45, p = 0.02). In conclusion, if DEX-I is used when there are no alternative therapies for treating macular edema, IOP in eyes with a history of filtering surgery is generally manageable. Those eyes which previously underwent conventional therapy with effective blebs obtained better IOP control after DEX-I injections and mostly did not require any additional IOP-lowering therapy or surgery

Intra-Ocular Pressure Response to Dexamethasone Implant Injections in Patients with a History of Filtering Surgery: The TRABEX Study

International audiencePatients with both macular edemas, of various etiologies such as diabetes and glaucoma, may suffer serious loss of vision if either disease goes untreated. Where no effective alternative therapies are available, dexamethasone implant (DEX-I) injections may be the only choice of treatment, despite the risk of a possible increase in intraocular pressure (IOP) when using steroids. Although many studies have reported on IOP evolution in eyes treated with DEX-I, little is known specifically about eyes with a history of filtering surgery. The aim of this observational series was to evaluate the IOP response following DEX-I injection in eyes presenting conventional filtering surgeries or microinvasive glaucoma surgeries (MIGS). Twenty-five eyes were included in this study. A total of 64% of the eyes did not experience OHT during follow-up. Additional IOP-lowering therapy was needed for 32% of eyes, and 20% of eyes (all showing bleb fibrosis) required further filtering surgery: 50% of eyes in the MIGS group and 10.5% of eyes in the conventional filtering surgery group. A significant positive correlation was found between IOP at baseline and the maximum IOP throughout follow-ups after DEX-I (r = 0.45, p = 0.02). In conclusion, if DEX-I is used when there are no alternative therapies for treating macular edema, IOP in eyes with a history of filtering surgery is generally manageable. Those eyes which previously underwent conventional therapy with effective blebs obtained better IOP control after DEX-I injections and mostly did not require any additional IOP-lowering therapy or surgery

Visual outcomes of macular melanocytic lesions after early or delayed proton beam therapy

International audiencePurposeDuring their initial management, some macular melanocytic lesions can be closely monitored to wait for a documented growth before advocating a treatment by irradiation. However, the visual outcomes of this strategy have not yet been assessed. This study compares the visual outcomes of macular melanocytic lesions that underwent delayed proton beam therapy (PBT) after an initial observation to those treated early.MethodsA total of 162 patients with suspicious melanocytic lesions whose margins were located within 3 mm of the fovea were recruited from two French ocular oncology centers.ResultsOverall, 82 patients treated with PBT within 4 months after the initial visit (early PBT group) were compared to 24 patients treated with delayed PBT (delayed PBT group) and 56 patients not treated with PBT (observation group). Visual acuity was not significantly different between baseline and last visit in the observation group (p = 0.325). Between baseline and last visit, the median [IQR] loss in visual acuity was significant in both the early (0.7 [0.2; 1.8], p < 0.001) and the delayed (0.5 [0.2; 1.5], p < 0.001) PBT groups. After irradiation, there was no significant difference between the early and delayed PBT groups for visual loss (p = 0.575), diameter reduction (p = 0.190), and thickness lowering (p = 0.892). In multivariate analysis, history of diabetes mellitus and Bruch's membrane rupture remained significantly associated with greater visual loss (p = 0.036 and p = 0.002, respectively).ConclusionFor small lesions in which there is no clear diagnosis of malignant melanoma, an initial close monitoring to document tumor growth does not impact visual prognosis, despite the potential complications associated with the untreated tumor. However, the survival should remain the main outcome of the treatment of these lesions