Outcomes of chronic macular hole surgical repair

Purpose: To report visual and anatomic outcomes of chronic macular hole surgery, with analysis of pre-operative OCT-based hole size and post-operative closure type. Settings and Design: An IRB-approved, retrospective case series of 26 eyes of 24 patients who underwent surgery for stage 3 or 4 idiopathic chronic macular holes at a tertiary care referral center. Statistical Analysis: Student′s t-test. Results: Nineteen of 26 eyes (73%) had visual improvement after surgery on most recent exam. Twenty-one of 26 eyes (81%) achieved anatomic closure; 16 of 26 eyes (62%) achieved type 1, and five of 26 eyes (19%) achieved type 2 closure. Post-operative LogMAR VA for type 1 closure holes (0.49) was significantly greater than for type 2 closure and open holes (1.26, P < 0.003 and 1.10, P < 0.005, respectively), despite similar pre-operative VA (P = 0.51 and 0.68, respectively). Mean pre-operative hole diameter for eyes with type 1 closure, type 2 closure, and holes that remained open were 554, 929, and 1205 microns, respectively. Mean pre-operative hole diameter was significantly larger in eyes that remained open as compared to eyes with type 1 closure (P = 0.015). Conclusion: Vitrectomy to repair chronic macular holes can improve vision and achieve long-term closure. Holes of greater than 3.4 years duration were associated with a greater incidence of remaining open and type 2 closure. Larger holes (mean diameter of 1205 microns) were more likely to remain open after repair

Paraneoplastic Optic Neuropathy and Pineal Germinoma With Collapsin Response-Mediating Protein Antibodies

Spontaneous recovery of visual loss resulting from injury to the brain is variable. A variety of traditional rehabilitative strategies, including the use of prisms or compensatory saccadic eye movements, have been used successfully to improve visual function and quality-of-life for patients with homonymous hemianopia. More recently, repetitive visual stimulation of the blind area has been reported to be of benefit in expanding the field of vision. We performed a literature review with main focus on clinical studies spanning from 1963 to 2016, including 52 peer-reviewed articles, relevant cross-referenced citations, editorials, and reviews. Repetitive visual stimulation is reported to expand the visual field, although the interpretation of results is confounded by a variety of methodological factors and conflicting outcomes from different research groups. Many studies used subjective assessments of vision and did not include a sufficient number of subjects or controls. The available clinical evidence does not strongly support claims of visual restoration using repetitive visual stimulation beyond the time that spontaneous visual recovery might occur. This lack of firm supportive evidence does not preclude the potential of real benefit demonstrated in laboratories. Additional well-designed clinical studies with adequate controls and methods to record ocular fixation are needed