Key factors to improve the outcome of retinal reattachment surgery in proliferative vitreoretinopathy and proliferative diabetic retinopathy

Introduction: For management of complicated retinal detachments, a pars plana vitrectomy with temporary silicone oil (SO) fill is the method of choice. According to literature, the retinal redetachment rate varies between 70% with around 36% in our own group (retrospective data analysis, n = 119 eyes). Methods: The main goal was to reduce the retinal redetachment rate. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) and evaluation protocols (EVALPs) were developed to prospectively analyse risk factors. Lab analysis of SO was performed, and the role of surgical experience was evaluated and investigated with Eyesi®. Results: We achieved a significant reduction of the retinal redetachment rate (to 6.80%, n = 101, p = 0.002). After surgery with SO injection, neither further membrane peeling (in 16.5%) nor retinal laser coagulation (in 100%) during revision surgery had a significant effect on the reattachment rate (p = 0.167, p = 0.23), while extensive additional laser coagulation reduced visual acuity (p = 0.01). A 3-port approach had to be set up to complete SO removal. A difference in success rate depending on surgical experience was confirmed, and the performance in Eyesi correlated with that in the patients' eye. Conclusions: A SOP- and EVALP-based management and new strategies to secure the surgical performance seem to be essential for successful surgery

Treatment of dysferlinopathy with deflazacort: a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial

Background: Dysferlinopathies are autosomal recessive disorders caused by mutations in the dysferlin (DYSF) gene encoding the dysferlin protein. DYSF mutations lead to a wide range of muscular phenotypes, with the most prominent being Miyoshi myopathy (MM) and limb girdle muscular dystrophy type 2B (LGMD2B). Methods: We assessed the one-year-natural course of dysferlinopathy, and the safety and efficacy of deflazacort treatment in a double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over trial. After one year of natural course without intervention, 25 patients with genetically defined dysferlinopathy were randomized to receive deflazacort and placebo for six months each (1 mg/kg/day in month one, 1 mg/kg every 2nd day during months two to six) in one of two treatment sequences. Results: During one year of natural course, muscle strength declined about 2% as measured by CIDD (Clinical Investigation of Duchenne Dystrophy) score, and 76 Newton as measured by hand-held dynamometry. Deflazacort did not improve muscle strength. In contrast, there is a trend of worsening muscle strength under deflazacort treatment, which recovers after discontinuation of the study drug. During deflazacort treatment, patients showed a broad spectrum of steroid side effects. Conclusion: Deflazacort is not an effective therapy for dysferlinopathies, and off-label use is not warranted. This is an important finding, since steroid treatment should not be administered in patients with dysferlinopathy, who may be often misdiagnosed as polymyositis

Clinical efficacy of simulated vitreoretinal surgery to prepare surgeons for the upcoming intervention in the operating room

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of the virtual reality training simulator Eyesi to prepare surgeons for performing pars plana vitrectomies and its potential to predict the surgeons’ performance. Methods: In a preparation phase, four participating vitreoretinal surgeons performed repeated simulator training with predefined tasks. If a surgeon was assigned to perform a vitrectomy for the management of complex retinal detachment after a surgical break of at least 60 hours it was randomly decided whether a warmup training on the simulator was required (n = 9) or not (n = 12). Performance at the simulator was measured using the built-in scoring metrics. The surgical performance was determined by two blinded observers who analyzed the video-recorded interventions. One of them repeated the analysis to check for intra-observer consistency. The surgical performance of the interventions with and without simulator training was compared. In addition, for the surgeries with simulator training, the simulator performance was compared to the performance in the operating room. Results: Comparing each surgeon’s performance with and without warmup trainingshowed a significant effect of warmup training onto the final outcome in the operating room. For the surgeries that were preceeded by the warmup procedure, the performance at the simulator was compared with the operating room performance. We found that there is a significant relation. The governing factor of low scores in the simulator were iatrogenic retinal holes, bleedings and lens damage. Surgeons who caused minor damage in the simulation also performed well in the operating room. Conclusions: Despite the large variation of conditions, the effect of a warmup training as well as a relation between the performance at the simulator and in the operating room was found with statistical significance. Simulator training is able to serve as a warmup to increase the average performance

The most prominent “faults” during simulator training.

<p>The most prominent “faults” during simulator training.</p

Comparison of the Eyesi score and the total score in the operating room.

<p>Individual surgeons are marked by different symbols. The experience of each surgeon in years is shown as part of his user name. The linear fit was determined by using a Pearson regression.</p

Average instrument speed (mm/s) in simulation in comparison to the performance in the operating room.

<p>Average instrument speed (mm/s) in simulation in comparison to the performance in the operating room.</p

GRASIS categorization of the parameters as used by the video analysis.

<p>GRASIS categorization of the parameters as used by the video analysis.</p

Comparison of injury score in simulation and total operating room score.

<p>Comparison of injury score in simulation and total operating room score.</p

The most important reasons for deductions from the individual surgeon‘s score.

<p>The most important reasons for deductions from the individual surgeon‘s score.</p