Management of retinal vein occlusion--consensus document

Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) can have severe consequences for the people affected by the disease, including visual loss with costly social repercussions. Currently, there is no European consensus with regard to the management of RVO. Following a careful review of the medical literature as well as the data from several clinical trials, a collaborative group of retina specialists put forth practical recommendations based on the best available scientific evidence for the clinical approach to RVO. Taking into consideration the recent advances in diagnostic tools and management options, the present document aims to provide the European ophthalmologists with guidelines for clinical practice to the benefit of their patients.     

Retinal vein occlusion: current treatment

Retinal vein occlusion (RVO) is a pathology noted for more than 150 years. Although a lot has been written on the matter, it is still a frequent condition with multifactorial etiopathogenesis with many unclear aspects. The RVO pathogenesis has varied systemic and local implications that make it difficult to elaborate treatment guidelines. The management of the patient with RVO is very complex and a multidisciplinary approach is required in order to identify and correct the associated risk factors. Laser therapy remains the gold standard in RVO, but only modest functional improvement has been shown in branch retinal occlusion forms. Multicenter studies of intravitreal drugs present them as an option to combine with laser. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor, corticosteroids and sustained-release implants are the future weapons to stop disease progression and get a better visual outcome. Consequently, it is useful to clarify some aspects of the pathology that allow a better patient management.     

Diode versus argon-green laser panretinal photocoagulation in proliferative diabetic retinopathy: A randomized study in 44 eyes with a long follow-up time

A clinical randomized study using argon-green (532 nm) and diode (810 nm) lasers was carried out on 44 eyes (34 patients) affected by proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR), with the aim of evaluating the long-term effects of diode panretinal photocoagulation. Of the total 44 eyes, 22 were randomized to argon laser treatment (ALT) and 22 to diode laser treatment (DLT). The mean follow-up time was 25 ± 5 months in the ALT group versus 24 ± 4 montsh in the DLT group. In the ALT group 20 eyes (91 %) showed regression of PDR whereas 2 eyes (9%) deteriorated. In the DLT group regression of neovascularization was observed in 22 eyes (100%). These results show that the long-term efficacy of diode laser PRP in the treatment of PDR is similar to that of argon-green laser PRP.     

Updating on intraoperative light-induced retinal injury

We are presenting the state of knowledge concerning intraoperative light-induced retinal injury, considered to be a combination of photic retinopathy and retinal photocoagulation. It may arise from retinal light exposure to the operating microscope or to the fiberoptic endoilluminator. Ultraviolet and short-wavelength visible light are more dangerous than longer wavelength light. Many risk factors may facilitate the onset of this iatrogenic disease following surgery. Many aspects of the retinal damage are still poorly understood. Many mild light-induced retinal injuries probably remain undiagnosed in routine postoperative examination. Current appropriate light filters are not the definitive solution. Appropriate precautions should be taken during both anterior segment and vitreoretinal surgery.     

Is scleral fixation a safe procedure for intraocular lens implantation?

Purpose: No consensus currently exists on the optimal method for intraocular (IOL) implantation without capsular support. We evaluated the outcome and angiographic findings of eyes that underwent the implantation of scleral fixated IOLs. Methods: Iris and retinal fluorescein angiography were performed in 13 eyes that had received posterior chamber IOL implantation with scleral fixation. Follow-up examinations also assessed visual acuity (VA), intraocular pressure (IOP), IOL decentration and complications related to the procedure. Results: Mean visual acuity was 0.29 preoperatively and 0.71 postoperatively after a mean follow-up of 14.2 months. A best corrected visual acuity of 0.5 or better was obtained in 12 eyes. Iris fluorescein angiography did not show major vascular abnormalities. Retinal angiography showed 5 cases of macular edema. In 6 eyes light-induced retinal lesions occurred. Cellophane maculopathy was disclosed in 4 eyes. Macular edema was associated with photic injury in 4 cases and with cellophane maculopathy in 2 cases. Mean postoperative visual acuity was 0.6 in eyes with macular edema and 0.88 in eyes without (SD 0.18; range 0.5–1.0). Four of 5 eyes with macular edema had a postoperative visual acuity of 0.5 or better. There was no evidence of persistent IOP elevation or IOL decentration. No serious complications were recorded during surgery. Conclusions: Transscleral fixation of posterior chamber IOLs provides adequate visual acuity in most patients. Macular edema was frequently associated with the procedure. Although this complication was a cause of low visual recovery after implantation, the majority of eyes with macular edema achieved a visual acuity of 0.5 or better. Light-induced retinal injury was a permanent complication. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.