13 research outputs found
Surgical treatment of epirethinal fibrosis: a current state of the problem
S.A. Kochergin, D.G. Alipov
Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education, Moscow
This review discusses different approaches of surgical treatment of epiretinal fibrosis in detail. The introduction briefly describes the risk factors and causes of the disease. Each type of operation is analized as well as all the possible options. The results of 25 and 27G vitrectomy are compared, also in this review you can find the comparison of membrane removal without vitrectomy and after subtotal vitrectomy. When ERM is removed without vitrectomy, the risk of cataract appearing, retinal detachment, appearance of visual field defects decreases, but the risk of recurrence of the disease increases. In this article are also given the advantages and disadvantages of ILM-removing during the operation. In particular, the data of meta-analysis is described, that shows that patientsβ who ERM was removed together with ILM visual acuity is higher 6 months after surgery, but after 18 months the situation becomes reverse. The possibilities for visualization of ERM during the operation are described. The article describes the features for visualization of ERM during surgery and a comparison of the results of operations involving ERM staining with ILM-Blue and MembraneBlue-Dual. The role of OCT in the diagnostics and treatment of ERF is shown. The possible surgery complications, such as hemophthalmia, retinal perforation, cataract, ocular hypertension, visual field defects are analized. This material does not include information about treatment of full macular hole.
Key words: epiretinal fibrosis, epiretinal membrane, vitrectomy, optical coherence tomography, internal limiting membrane, complications, intraocular hemorrhage, retinal detachment, cataract, ocular hypertension, dyes, visual field.
For citation: Kochergin S.A., Alipov D.G. Surgical treatment of epirethinal fibrosis: a current state of the problem // RMJ βClinical ophthalmologyβ. 2018;1:55β59.<br
Π£Π΄Π°Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠΏΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ½Π°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ ΠΌΠ΅ΠΌΠ±ΡΠ°Π½ Π±Π΅Π· Π²ΠΈΡΡΡΠΊΡΠΎΠΌΠΈΠΈ
Π¦Π΅Π»Ρ. ΠΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡΡ ΡΡΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΡΡΡ ΠΈ Π±Π΅Π·ΠΎΠΏΠ°ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡ ΡΠ΄Π°Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΠΏΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ½Π°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΠΌΠ΅ΠΌΠ±ΡΠ°Π½ Π±Π΅Π· Π²ΠΈΡΡΡΠΊΡΠΎΠΌΠΈΠΈ. ΠΠ°ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ°Π» ΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄Ρ. ΠΡΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½Π° ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΠΊΠ° ΡΠ΅Π·ΡΠ»ΡΡΠ°ΡΠΎΠ² Ρ
ΠΈΡΡΡΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π»Π΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ 20 ΠΏΠ°ΡΠΈΠ΅Π½ΡΠΎΠ² (20 Π³Π»Π°Π·), ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΠΌ ΡΠΏΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ½Π°Π»ΡΠ½Π°Ρ ΠΌΠ΅ΠΌΠ±ΡΠ°Π½Π° (ΠΠ Π) ΡΠ΄Π°Π»ΡΠ»Π°ΡΡ Π±Π΅Π· Π²ΠΈΡΡΡΠΊΡΠΎΠΌΠΈΠΈ. Π£Π΄Π°Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΠ Π ΠΏΡΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠ»ΠΎΡΡ ΠΏΠΎ ΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΡΡΡΠ΅ΠΉ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠΊΠ΅: ΡΡΡΠ°Π½ΠΎΠ²ΠΊΠ° Π΄Π²ΡΡ
25G-ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠΎΠ², ΡΠ΄Π°Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠΏΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ½Π°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΌΠ΅ΠΌΠ±ΡΠ°Π½Ρ Π΅Π΄ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΌ Π±Π»ΠΎΠΊΠΎΠΌ Ρ Π²Π½ΡΡΡΠ΅Π½Π½Π΅ΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΠ³ΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΌΠ΅ΠΌΠ±ΡΠ°Π½ΠΎΠΉ (ΠΠΠ) Π±Π΅Π· ΠΎΠΊΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ. ΠΡΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠ»ΡΡ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΡΠΎΠ»Ρ ΠΎΡΡΡΠΎΡΡ Π·ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ, Π²Π½ΡΡΡΠΈΠ³Π»Π°Π·Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π΄Π°Π²Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ, ΡΠΎΠ»ΡΠΈΠ½Ρ ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ°ΡΠΊΠΈ Π² ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ Π·ΠΎΠ½Π΅, Π° ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΆΠ΅ ΡΠΎΠ»ΡΠΈΠ½Ρ ΡΠ»ΠΎΡ Π½Π΅ΡΠ²Π½ΡΡ
Π²ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ½ ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ°ΡΠΊΠΈ Π² ΡΠ°Π·Π»ΠΈΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΎΡΠ°Ρ
ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΏΠ°ΠΏΠΈΠ»Π»ΡΡΠ½ΠΎ, ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΆΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠ»ΡΡ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΡΠΎΠ»Ρ ΡΠΊΡΠΊΠ°Π²Π°ΡΠΈΠΈ ΠΠΠ Ρ ΠΏΠΎΠΌΠΎΡΡΡ ΠΠΠ’. Π‘Π²Π΅ΡΠΎΡΡΠ²ΡΡΠ²ΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΌΠ°ΠΊΡΠ»ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ Π·ΠΎΠ½Ρ ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ°ΡΠΊΠΈ ΠΎΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄Π΅Π»ΡΠ»Π°ΡΡ ΠΏΡΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΠΌΠΎΡΠΈ ΠΌΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΠ° Maia, Π° ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
Π·ΠΎΠ½ - ΠΏΡΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΠΌΠΎΡΠΈ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΡΡΡΠ΅ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΠ° Humpfrey. ΠΠ°ΡΠΈΠ΅Π½ΡΡ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½Ρ Π΄ΠΎ ΠΎΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ, Π° ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΆΠ΅ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π· 1, 3, 6 ΠΈ 12 ΠΌΠ΅Ρ. ΠΏΠΎΡΠ»Π΅ ΠΎΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ. Π Π΅Π·ΡΠ»ΡΡΠ°ΡΡ. Π‘ΡΠ΅Π΄Π½ΠΈΠΉ Π²ΠΎΠ·ΡΠ°ΡΡ ΠΏΠ°ΡΠΈΠ΅Π½ΡΠΎΠ² Π² ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΎΠΉ Π³ΡΡΠΏΠΏΠ΅ ΡΠΎΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ» 67,7Β±11,4 Π³ΠΎΠ΄Π°. Π‘ΡΠ΅Π΄Π½ΡΡ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ»ΠΆΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡ Ρ
ΠΈΡΡΡΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π²ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠ°ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΡΡΠ²Π° ΡΠΎΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ»Π° 8 ΠΌΠΈΠ½ΡΡ. Π‘ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈ Π·Π½Π°ΡΠΈΠΌΠΎΠ΅ ΡΠ²Π΅Π»ΠΈΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΎΡΡΡΠΎΡΡ Π·ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π±ΡΠ»ΠΎ Π·Π°ΡΠΈΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΎ ΡΠΆΠ΅ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π· ΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΡ (0,378 ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ² 0,286 Π΄ΠΎ Π²ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠ°ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΡΡΠ²Π°, p=0,041), ΠΈ Π² Π΄Π°Π»ΡΠ½Π΅ΠΉΡΠ΅ΠΌ Π·Π½Π°ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ Π΄Π°Π½Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°ΡΠ΅Π»Ρ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ»ΠΆΠΈΠ»ΠΎ Π½Π°ΡΠ°ΡΡΠ°ΡΡ, Π΄ΠΎΡΡΠΈΠ³Π½ΡΠ² ΠΊ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΡ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΎΠ΄Π° Π½Π°Π±Π»ΡΠ΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π²Π΅Π»ΠΈΡΠΈΠ½Ρ 0,63 (Π΄ΠΈΠ½Π° ΠΌΠΈΠΊΠ° Π·Π° 12 ΠΌΠ΅Ρ. +0,344). Π‘Π²Π΅ΡΠΎΡΡΠ²ΡΡΠ²ΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡ ΠΌΠ°ΠΊΡΠ»Ρ Π²ΠΎΠ·ΡΠΎΡΠ»Π° Π·Π° 12 ΠΌΠ΅Ρ. Π½Π° 2,21 Π΄Π (p=0,008). Π’ΠΎΠ»ΡΠΈΠ½Π° ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ°ΡΠΊΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ³ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎ ΡΠ½ΠΈΠΆΠ°Π»Π°ΡΡ Π² ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ Π²ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΎΠ΄Π° Π½Π°Π±Π»ΡΠ΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ (Ρ 462,4 ΠΌΠΊΠΌ ΠΈΡΡ
ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎ Π΄ΠΎ 363,9 ΠΌΠΊΠΌ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π· 12 ΠΌΠ΅Ρ., p=0,01). ΠΠ·ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π΄ΡΡΠ³ΠΈΡ
ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°ΡΠ΅Π»Π΅ΠΉ Π±ΡΠ»ΠΈ Π½Π΅Π·Π½Π°ΡΠΈΠΌΡΠΌΠΈ. Π£ 6 ΠΏΠ°ΡΠΈΠ΅Π½ΡΠΎΠ² ΠΈΠ· 20 Π±ΡΠ» Π·Π°ΡΠΈΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ΄ΠΈΠ² ΠΌΠ΅ΠΌΠ±ΡΠ°Π½Ρ Π² ΡΡΠΎΠΊΠΈ ΠΎΡ 3 Π΄ΠΎ 6 ΠΌΠ΅Ρ. ΠΠ°Π½Π½ΠΎΠ΅ ΠΎΡΠ»ΠΎΠΆΠ½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅, ΠΏΠΎ Π²ΡΠ΅ΠΉ Π²ΠΈΠ΄ΠΈΠΌΠΎΡΡΠΈ, ΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ΅Ρ Π±ΡΡΡ ΡΠ²ΡΠ·Π°Π½ΠΎ Ρ Π½Π΅ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π½ΡΠΌ ΡΠ΄Π°Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ΠΌ Π²Π½ΡΡΡΠ΅Π½Π½Π΅ΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΠ³ΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΌΠ΅ΠΌΠ±ΡΠ°Π½Ρ ΠΏΡΠΈ ΡΠ΄Π°Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΈ ΡΠΏΠΈΠΌΠ°ΠΊΡΠ»ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΌΠ΅ΠΌΠ±ΡΠ°Π½Ρ Π΅Π΄ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΌ Π±Π»ΠΎΠΊΠΎΠΌ Ρ Π½Π΅ΠΉ ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΈ ΠΎΡΡΡΡΡΡΠ²ΠΈΠΈ ΠΎΠΊΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ. ΠΡΠ²ΠΎΠ΄Ρ. Π£Π΄Π°Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠΏΠΈΠΌΠ°ΠΊΡΠ»ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΌΠ΅ΠΌΠ±ΡΠ°Π½Ρ Π±Π΅Π· Π²ΠΈΡΡΡΠΊΡΠΎΠΌΠΈΠΈ ΡΡΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎ (Π·Π½Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠΉ ΡΠΎΡΡ ΠΎΡΡΡΠΎΡΡ Π·ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ, ΡΠ»ΡΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠ²Π΅ΡΠΎΡΡΠ²ΡΡΠ²ΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ Π·ΠΎΠ½Ρ ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ°ΡΠΊΠΈ, ΡΠ½ΠΈΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠΎΠ»ΡΠΈΠ½Ρ ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ°ΡΠΊΠΈ), Π½Π΅ ΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·ΡΠ²Π°Π΅Ρ Π½Π΅Π³Π°ΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π²Π»ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΈΡ Π½Π° ΡΠ²Π΅ΡΠΎΡΡΠ²ΡΡΠ²ΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ°ΡΠΊΠΈ ΠΈ Π²Π½ΡΡΡΠΈΠ³Π»Π°Π·Π½ΠΎΠ΅ Π΄Π°Π²Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅, ΠΎΠ΄Π½Π°ΠΊΠΎ ΡΠΎΠΏΡΡΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΎ Ρ ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ΄ΠΈΠ²ΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ΠΌ, ΡΡΠΎ ΡΠ²ΡΠ·Π°Π½ΠΎ ΡΠΎ ΡΠ»ΠΎΠΆΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡΡ Π²ΡΠΏΠΎΠ»Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΈ Π² ΠΎΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄Π΅Π»Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΡΠ΅ΠΏΠ΅Π½ΠΈ ΠΎΠ³ΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΡΠΈΠ²Π°Π΅Ρ ΠΏΡΠΈΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ Π΄Π°Π½Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄Π°
Improving effectiveness of glaucoma screening during prophylactic medical examinations: current approaches
M.A. Kazanfarova1,2, I.B. Alekseev1, A.L. Lindenbraten3, S.A. Kochergin1
1Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education,
Moscow, Russian Federation
2The International Medical Cluster Foundation, Moscow, Russian Federation
3N.A. Semashko National Research Institute of Public Health, Moscow, Russian Federation
Background: early diagnosis of diseases in clinically healthy persons is the basis of prophylactic medical examinations. In addition to cardiovascular disorders, cancer, diabetes, and chronic lung diseases, glaucoma is one of the major causes of disability in Russian Federation. Prophylactic medical examinations for glaucoma are less addressed in domestic published data than for other diseases which results in disability and early death.
Aim: to assess the effectiveness of screening for glaucoma in Russian Federation, to uncover ineffective areas, and to suggest potential solutions.
Materials and Methods: the 35-item questionnaire for ophthalmologists who provide primary ocular care was developed (screening questions are addressed below). Survey responses from 126 ophthalmologists who provide primary ocular care were anonymous.
Results: 37% of respondents consider prophylactic medical examinations effective while 63% consider prophylactic medical examinations ineffective. Currently, glaucoma is diagnosed more often at early stages, i.e., 34% of respondents diagnose glaucoma at early stage, 60% at early-to-moderate stage, and 6% at moderate-to-advanced stage. 71% of respondents diagnose glaucoma in patients who visit an ophthalmologist independently, 29% diagnose glaucoma in the course of prophylactic medical examinations. 46% of respondents report that IOP measurements during prophylactic medical examinations in adults result in more often diagnosis of glaucoma at early stages. 26% diagnose glaucoma more often but at later stages while 28% do not diagnose glaucoma more often.
Conclusions: currently, glaucoma is diagnosed more often at early stages but mainly in patients who visit an ophthalmologist independently. This is the result either of poor coverage of the population by prophylactic medical examinations or their poor quality. Revision of fundamental approach to glaucoma screening is required, i.e., switch from mass screening using tonometry (which is characterized by high percentage of errors) to target screening using advanced diagnostic tools.
Keywords: prophylactic medical examinations, screening, medical prevention, chronic noninfectious disorders, glaucoma, risk factors, early stage.
For citation: Kazanfarova M.A., Alekseev I.B., Lindenbraten A.L., Kochergin S.A. Improving effectiveness of glaucoma screening during prophylactic medical examinations: current approaches. Russian Journal of Clinical Ophthalmology. 2019;19(3):122β127.
About the authors:
1,2Marina A. Kazanfarova β MD, postgraduate student, Project Manager of the International Medical Cluster Foundation, ORCID iD 0000-0001-7401-9538;
1Igor B. Alekseev β MD, PhD, Professor, ORCID iD 0000-0002-4506-4986;
3Aleksandr L. Lindenbraten β MD, PhD, Professor, ORCID iD 0000-0003-3335-7893;
1Sergey A. Kochergin β MD, PhD, Professor, ORCID iD 0000-0002-8913-822X.
1Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education. 2/1, Barrikadnaya str., Moscow, 125993, Russian Federation.
2 The International Medical Cluster Foundation. 35β1, Usachev str., Moscow, 119048, Russian Federation.
3N.A. Semashko National Research Institute of Public Health. 12β1, Vorontsovo Pole str., Moscow, 105064, Russian Federation.
Contact information: Marina A. Kazanfarova, e-mail: [email protected]. Financial Disclosure: no author has a financial or property interest in any material or method mentioned. There is no conflict of interests. Received 15.04.2019.
</p
ΠΠ°ΡΠ΄ΠΈΠΎΠΌΠΈΠΎΠΏΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ, Π°ΡΡΠΎΡΠΈΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½Π½ΡΠ΅ Ρ ΠΌΡΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡΠΌΠΈ Π³Π΅Π½Π° Π΄Π΅ΡΠΌΠΈΠ½Π°: ΠΌΠΎΠ»Π΅ΠΊΡΠ»ΡΡΠ½ΡΠΉ ΠΏΠ°ΡΠΎΠ³Π΅Π½Π΅Π· ΠΈ Π³Π΅Π½ΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΠΏΠ΅Π²ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠ΅ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Ρ ΠΎΠ΄Ρ
Cardiomyopathy (CMP) is aΒ common group of cardiovascular disorders. Genetic (primary) cardiomyopathies are related to abnormalities in more than 100 genes, including the DES gene encoding desmin protein. Desmin is an essential member of the intermediate filaments, ensuring the structural and functional integrity of myocytes. Mutations in the DES gene result in desmin-related cardiomyopathy with progressive course and poor prognosis. By now, specific therapy for cardiomyopathy has not been developed. Existing conservative and surgical treatment modalities target the rate of heart failure progression and sudden cardiac death prevention but have limited efficacy. The development of gene therapy and genome editing could allow for creating effective and specific methods of gene-based therapy for desminopathies. AΒ number of studies have been published on the use of gene therapy for various genetic cardiomyopathies including those caused by the DES gene mutations, while genome editing has not been used yet. However, promising results have been obtained with CRISPR/Cas9 and TALEN editing systems to correct for βgain-of-function mutationsβ in some other genes, such as MYBPC3 and PLN. There is also evidence of the possibility to reduce the symptoms of desmin-related cardiomyopathy up to the normal function by knocking out the mutant DES allele, and preserved protein function provided by expression of the normal allele. We believe that genome editing approaches have an open perspective into the development of specific and effective methods to treat desminopathies.ΠΠ°ΡΠ΄ΠΈΠΎΠΌΠΈΠΎΠΏΠ°ΡΠΈΡΒ β ΡΠΈΡΠΎΠΊΠΎ ΡΠ°ΡΠΏΡΠΎΡΡΡΠ°Π½Π΅Π½Π½Π°Ρ Π³ΡΡΠΏΠΏΠ° Π·Π°Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΄Π΅ΡΠ½ΠΎ-ΡΠΎΡΡΠ΄ΠΈΡΡΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΡ. ΠΠ΅Π½Π΅ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈ ΠΎΠ±ΡΡΠ»ΠΎΠ²Π»Π΅Π½Π½ΡΠ΅ ΠΊΠ°ΡΠ΄ΠΈΠΎΠΌΠΈΠΎΠΏΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ ΡΠ²ΡΠ·ΡΠ²Π°ΡΡ ΡΒ Π½Π°ΡΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡΠΌΠΈ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅ ΡΠ΅ΠΌ Π²Β 100 ΡΠ°Π·Π»ΠΈΡΠ½ΡΡ
Π³Π΅Π½Π°Ρ
, Π²Β ΡΠΎΠΌ ΡΠΈΡΠ»Π΅ Π²Β Π³Π΅Π½Π΅ DES, ΠΊΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΡΡΡΡΠ΅ΠΌ Π±Π΅Π»ΠΎΠΊ Π΄Π΅ΡΠΌΠΈΠ½Β β ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠ½ ΠΈΠ· ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π½ΡΡ
Π±Π΅Π»ΠΊΠΎΠ² ΠΏΡΠΎΠΌΠ΅ΠΆΡΡΠΎΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΡΠΈΠ»Π°ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΠΎΠ², ΠΎΠ±Π΅ΡΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΡΠΈΡ
ΡΡΡΡΠΊΡΡΡΠ½ΡΡ ΠΈΒ ΡΡΠ½ΠΊΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ ΡΠ΅Π»ΠΎΡΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡ ΠΌΠΈΠΎΡΠΈΡΠΎΠ². ΠΡΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ Π²Β Π³Π΅Π½Π΅ DES ΠΏΡΠΈΠ²ΠΎΠ΄ΡΡ ΠΊΒ ΡΠ°Π·Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΡ Π΄Π΅ΡΠΌΠΈΠ½Π·Π°Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΠΌΡΡ
ΠΊΠ°ΡΠ΄ΠΈΠΎΠΌΠΈΠΎΠΏΠ°ΡΠΈΠΉ, Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ·ΡΡΡΠΈΡ
ΡΡ Π²ΡΡΠΎΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΡΡΠ΅ΠΏΠ΅Π½ΡΡ ΡΡΠΆΠ΅ΡΡΠΈ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΈΒ Π½Π΅Π±Π»Π°Π³ΠΎΠΏΡΠΈΡΡΠ½ΡΠΌ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ³Π½ΠΎΠ·ΠΎΠΌ. ΠΠΎ Π½Π°ΡΡΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎ Π²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΠΈ ΡΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π»Π΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΊΠ°ΡΠ΄ΠΈΠΎΠΌΠΈΠΎΠΏΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ Π½Π΅ ΡΠ°Π·ΡΠ°Π±ΠΎΡΠ°Π½ΠΎ. ΠΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΠΈΠ΅ΡΡ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ΅ΡΠ²Π°ΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΡΠ΅ ΠΈΒ Ρ
ΠΈΡΡΡΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠ΅ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Ρ
ΠΎΠ΄Ρ Π½Π°ΠΏΡΠ°Π²Π»Π΅Π½Ρ Π½Π° Π·Π°ΠΌΠ΅Π΄Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ² ΠΏΡΠΎΠ³ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΄Π΅ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ Π½Π΅Π΄ΠΎΡΡΠ°ΡΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΈΒ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ»Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΠΊΡ Π²Π½Π΅Π·Π°ΠΏΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΄Π΅ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΠΈ, Π½ΠΎ ΠΈΡ
ΡΡΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΡΡΡ ΠΎΠ³ΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅Π½Π°. Π Π°Π·Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΠ΅ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ² Π³Π΅Π½ΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΠΏΠΈΠΈ ΠΈΒ Π³Π΅Π½ΠΎΠΌΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ΅Π΄Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ΅Ρ ΡΠΏΠΎΡΠΎΠ±ΡΡΠ²ΠΎΠ²Π°ΡΡ ΡΠΎΠ·Π΄Π°Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΡΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΡΡ
ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ² ΡΡΠΈΠΎΡΡΠΎΠΏΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΠΏΠΈΠΈ Π΄Π΅ΡΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΎΠΏΠ°ΡΠΈΠΉ. ΠΠΏΡΠ±Π»ΠΈΠΊΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ ΡΡΠ΄ ΡΠ°Π±ΠΎΡ, ΠΏΠΎΡΠ²ΡΡΠ΅Π½Π½ΡΡ
ΠΏΡΠΈΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ² Π³Π΅Π½ΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΠΏΠΈΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΈ ΠΊΠ°ΡΠ΄ΠΈΠΎΠΌΠΈΠΎΠΏΠ°ΡΠΈΡΡ
ΡΠ°Π·Π»ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ Π³Π΅Π½Π΅ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΡΠΈΡΠΎΠ΄Ρ, Π²ΠΊΠ»ΡΡΠ°Ρ Π°ΡΡΠΎΡΠΈΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½Π½ΡΠ΅ ΡΒ ΠΌΡΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡΠΌΠΈ Π²Β Π³Π΅Π½Π΅ DES. ΠΒ ΠΎΠ±Π»Π°ΡΡΠΈ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΠΏΠΈΠΈ Π΄Π΅ΡΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΎΠΏΠ°ΡΠΈΠΉ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄Ρ Π³Π΅Π½ΠΎΠΌΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ΅Π΄Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ° Π½Π΅ ΠΈΡΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡΠ·ΡΡΡΡΡ. Π’Π΅ΠΌ Π½Π΅ ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅Π΅ ΠΌΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎΠΎΠ±Π΅ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠ΅Π·ΡΠ»ΡΡΠ°ΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡΡΠ΅Π½Ρ ΠΏΡΠΈ ΠΈΡΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡΠ·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΈ ΡΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΠΌ ΡΠ΅Π΄Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ CRISPR/Cas9 ΠΈΒ TALEN Π΄Π»Ρ ΠΊΠΎΡΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠΈ βgain-of-functionβ ΠΌΡΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠΉ Π²Β Π½Π΅ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΡ
Π΄ΡΡΠ³ΠΈΡ
Π³Π΅Π½Π°Ρ
, ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ MYBPC3 ΠΈΒ PLN. ΠΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΡΡ Π΄Π°Π½Π½ΡΠ΅, ΡΠΊΠ°Π·ΡΠ²Π°ΡΡΠΈΠ΅ Π½Π° Π²ΠΎΠ·ΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡ ΡΠ»ΡΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΠΈΠΌΠΏΡΠΎΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΠΊΠΈ Π΄Π΅ΡΠΌΠΈΠ½Π·Π°Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΠΌΠΎΠΉ ΠΊΠ°ΡΠ΄ΠΈΠΎΠΌΠΈΠΎΠΏΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ, Π²ΠΏΠ»ΠΎΡΡ Π΄ΠΎ Π±Π΅ΡΡΠΈΠΌΠΏΡΠΎΠΌΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ»Π΅ Π½ΠΎΠΊΠ°ΡΡΠ° ΠΌΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π°Π»Π»Π΅Π»Ρ ΡΒ ΡΠΎΡ
ΡΠ°Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ΠΌ ΡΡΠ½ΠΊΡΠΈΠΈ Π±Π΅Π»ΠΊΠ° Π·Π° ΡΡΠ΅Ρ ΡΠΊΡΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΈΠΈ ΡΠΎΠ»ΡΠΊΠΎ Π½ΠΎΡΠΌΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π°Π»Π»Π΅Π»Ρ. ΠΡ ΡΡΠΈΡΠ°Π΅ΠΌ, ΡΡΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Ρ
ΠΎΠ΄Ρ, ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½Π½ΡΠ΅ Π½Π° ΡΠ΅Ρ
Π½ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΠΈ Π³Π΅Π½ΠΎΠΌΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ΅Π΄Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ, ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°Π²Π»ΡΡΡ ΡΠΎΠ±ΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΡΠΏΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠ΅ Π½Π°ΠΏΡΠ°Π²Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ Π΄Π»Ρ ΡΠ°Π·ΡΠ°Π±ΠΎΡΠΊΠΈ ΡΡΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΡΡ
ΡΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ² Π»Π΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π΄Π΅ΡΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΎΠΏΠ°ΡΠΈΠΉ
Senile cataract β features of development and outcomes of surgical treatment in patients with hepatitis B and C viruses
B.N. Hatsukova1, G.M. Chernakova2, S.A. Kochergin1, E.A. Kleshcheva1, E.Yu. Malinnikova1,
K.K. Kyuregyan3, M.M. Mikhailov3
1 Russian Medical Academy of Continuing Professional Education, Moscow, Russian Federation
2 S. Fyodorov Eye Microsurgery Federal State Institution, Moscow, Russian Federation
3 Scientific Research Center of Russian Medical Academy of Continuing Professional Education,
Moscow, Russian Federation
Aim: to analyze features of the clinical course and results of the surgical treatment of cataracts in patients with chronic hepatitis B and C, to search for possible relationships between the formation of cataracts and the fact of chronic infection caused by HBV/HCV.
Patients and Methods: 20 patients were included in the study. The main group consisted of 10 patients with HBV and HCV. The experimental group (control group) consisted of 10 patients with the absence of diagnostically significant levels of antibodies to HBV and HCV in blood serum. All patients in both groups twice underwent a standard ophthalmologic examination, as well as optical coherence tomography (OCT) of the macular area and optic disc, Humphrey Visual Field, and visocontrastometry. Cataract extraction was performed using Laureate phacoemulsifier. All patients were implanted with a posterior chamber intraocular lens (IOL). The levels of biochemical indicators of the functional state of the liver β alanine aminotransferase (ALAT) and aspartate aminotransferase (ASAT) β were determined for all patients.
Results: average age of patients in the main group was 61.9Β±5.23 years, in the control group β 69.4Β±3.12. The average level of ALAT in the group with patients infected with hepatitis viruses was 44.5Β±4.54 U/l, and in the group of healthy people β 22.45Β±2.08 U/l, and the level of ASAT was 38.9Β±3.48 U/l, and 18.7Β±2.43 U/l, respectively. The difference between the average levels of ALAT and ASAT between groups is statistically significant. It was found that visual acuity in the main group prior to cataract surgery is slightly lower than in the control group. Also after the operation, in the group with patients infected with hepatitis viruses it is lower than in the group of healthy people, however, this fact did not reach the level of statistical significance.
Conclusion: the study results suggest the presence of a certain relationship, if not between cataractogenesis and chronic infection with hepatitis B and C viruses, then between cataractogenesis and altered biochemical status (hyperenzymemia) with a higher probability.
Key words: cataract, phacoemulsification, hepatitis B, hepatitis C.
For citation: Hatsukova B.N., Chernakova G.M., Kochergin S.A. et al. Senile cataract β features of development and outcomes of surgical treatment in patients with hepatitis B and C viruses. RMJ βClinical ophthalmologyβ. 2018;4:174β178.<br