International multi-center study of iatrogenic retinal tears in pars plana vitrectomy

AIM: To study and compare the effect of different surgical settings on the development of iatrogenic retinal tears (IRT) in conventional (20-gauge) and microincisional vitrectomy. METHODS: An international retrospective comparative study of 394 patients who had simple vitrectomy at three tertiary centers. Surgeries were performed by four retina surgeons using different viewing systems. Two groups of eyes were compared: microincisional vitrectomy (327 eyes) and conventional (67 eyes) vitrectomy. An iatrogenic tear was defined as the occurrence of one or more peripheral retinal tears during surgery or at any visit in the first 6wk postoperatively. RESULTS: Mean age was 67+/-12y and 55% were female. Iatrogenic tears occurred in 11/394 (2.8%) of eyes. The rate of tears was similar among different surgeons and viewing systems (P=0.93 and P=0.76, respectively). Surgical indication, preexisting pseudophakia/aphakia, induction of posterior vitreous detachment (PVD) during surgery, and the use triamcinolone acetonide didn\u27t significantly affect the rate of tears (P \u3e 0.1 for all factors). A higher rate of tears was found in the conventional group compared to the microincisional group (respectively, 7.5%, 1.8%, P=0.02). CONCLUSION: The rate of IRT in vitrectomy is not significantly affected by surgical indication, preexisting PVD or pseudophakia, or use of triamcinolone or different viewing systems but is significantly higher in conventional vitrectomy. Microincisional platforms improve the safety of vitrectomy regardless of the viewing system used

Patient preferences in retinal drug delivery

Retinal vascular diseases (RVDs) are often treated with intravitreally (IVT) injected drugs, with relatively low patient compliance and potential risks. Ongoing research explores alternative RVD treatments, including eye drops and oral tablets. This study surveyed RVD patients treated with IVT injections to establish factors influencing low compliance rates while gauging treatment delivery method preferences. Demographics, perspectives, and treatment preferences were collected via IRB-approved, self-administered survey sent to Glick Eye Institute patients treated via IVT injections. Demographics, diagnoses, and treatments were ascertained from respondents’ medical records. Gender, age, and number of IVT injections received were used as stratifications. Five-level Likert-style scales and t-tests evaluated responses and stratification comparisons. The most common diagnoses in the respondent population (n = 54; response rate = 5%) were age-related macular degeneration, macular edema, and diabetic retinopathy. Respondents had varying levels of education, income, and age. Most (83%) admitted feeling anxious prior to their first IVT injection, but 80% reported willingness to receive IVT injections indefinitely, with a preference for ophthalmologist visits every 1–3 months. Eye drops would be preferred over IVT injections by 76% of respondents, while 65% preferred oral tablets, due to several perceived negative factors of IVT injections and positive factors for eye drops. Stratified groups did not differ in responses to survey questions. RVD patients will accept IVT injections for vision preservation, but alternative delivery methods like eye drops or oral tablets would be preferred. Thus, development of eye drop and oral therapeutics for RVD treatment is further emphasized by these findings