Vitrectomy for Diabetic Macular Edema

Effectiveness of Suprachoroidal Injection of Triamcinolone Acetonide in Diabetic Macular Edema Following Pars Plana Vitrectomy Using a Modified Custom Microneedle

Purpose

The present study evaluated the efficacy of suprachoroidal injection of Triamcinolone Acetonide (SCTA) in diabetic macular edema (DME) following pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) using a modified microneedle.

Patients and methods

A prospective interventional study was conducted on 60 eyes of 60 patients with centrally involved diabetic macular edema following pars plana vitrectomy (PPV). SCTA was performed at the baseline and repeated after 3 months in case of persistent subretinal or intraretinal fluid, central macular thickness (CMT) more than 300 µm or visual loss by more than one line of the Snellen chart.

Results

The present study detected significant reduction of the CMT from 498.3 ± 94.8 µm at the baseline to 212.3 ± 11.9 µm after 12 months of injection with p < 0.001 and a significant improvement of best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from 1 (0.9-1.2) at the baseline to 0.5 (0.3-0.7) after 12 months of injection with p < 0.001. The intraocular pressure (IOP) increased significantly after 3 months of injection with p < 0.001 and then gradually declined to its normal level after 6 months. Inner segment/outer segment (IS/OS) disruption was the only significant predictor of the final CMT; however, the number of injections, IS/OS disruption, baseline BCVA and the HbA1C level were the significant predictors of the final BCVA after injection.

Conclusion

Suprachoroidal injection of TA using this microneedle resulted in significant anatomical and functional improvement in previously vitrectomized diabetic macular edema patients with no recorded ocular or systemic adverse events.

Suprachoroidal injection of triamcinolone acetonide using a custom-made needle to treat diabetic macular edema post pars plana vitrectomy: a case series

Objective

Diabetic macular edema (DME), the most common cause of diabetes-related visual impairment, may occur following pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) to manage proliferative diabetic retinopathy complications. This retrospective single-centre case series evaluated the efficacy and safety of injecting 4 mg/0.1 ml triamcinolone into the suprachoroidal space using a custom-made needle to treat DME post PPV.

Methods

Data regarding central macular thickness (CMT) using spectral domain-optical coherence tomography and best-corrected visual acuity (by Snellen chart) at baseline (pre-injection), and at 1, 4, and 8 weeks following injection were analysed, along with intraocular pressure (IOP), cataract progression, and ocular safety.

Results

Eleven eyes in 10 patients received 11 suprachoroidal injections. Vision improvement was noted (0.75 log minimum angle of resolution (MAR) at baseline to 0.40 log MAR after treatment). CMT reduced significantly from 456.45 ± 113.42 μm at baseline to 247.63 ± 53.40 μm at 8 weeks following injection. No rise in IOP, or cataract development in the single treated phakic eye, was observed during 8 weeks of follow-up.

Conclusion

Suprachoroidal injection of triamcinolone using a custom-made needle to treat DME post PPV shows promising results with acceptable safety outcomes. Large clinical trials with longer follow-up are needed to evaluate this treatment option for countries with limited health-care resources.

The impact of vitrectomy on outcomes achieved with 0.19 mg fluocinolone acetonide implant in patients with diabetic macular edema

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of consensus on the use of intravitreal corticosteroid therapies in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) and prior vitrectomized eyes in clinical practice.

METHODS

Retro-IDEAL was a 3-year retrospective, multicenter study in patients with chronic DME (i.e. DME that persists or recurs despite treatment) treated with ILUVIEN® (0.2 µg daily fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant), who had suboptimal outcomes with first-line vascular endothelial growth-factor inhibitors and other DME therapies.

RESULTS

A total of 81 eyes (63 patients) were included of which 39 eyes had undergone prior vitrectomy (PV group) while 42 eyes had not undergone prior vitrectomy (NPV). Baseline characteristics were balanced; however, more patients had proliferative diabetic retinopathy in the PV group vs. the NPV group (21.62% vs 9.38%, respectively). Over 36 months, mean visual acuity (VA) increased in both groups with a tendency for more ETDRS letters being gained in the NPV group (+5.33) vs. the PV group (+2.42). By month 36, central retinal thickness was reduced to ⩽300 µm in two-thirds of the eyes in both groups and the mean change from baseline in intraocular pressure was similar in both groups (+0.50 mmHg -0.75 mmHg; NPV and PV group).

CONCLUSIONS

These long-term data suggest that the 0.2 μg/day FAc implant is effective in both vitrectomized and non-vitrectomized patients, with a manageable safety profile, and improved VA and reduced supplemental therapies for patients with a suboptimal response to first-line DME therapies. Clinicians may consider utilizing the FAc implant earlier in the DME disease process.

Effectiveness of Intravitreal Ranibizumab in Nonvitrectomized and Vitrectomized Eyes with Diabetic Macular Edema: A Two-Year Retrospective Analysis

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) injections for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) in eyes with and without previous vitrectomy. The medical records of 28 eyes (11 vitrectomized and 17 nonvitrectomized) of 28 patients (mean age, 59.0 ± 9.6 years; male to female ratio 1 : 1) who were diagnosed with DME and had received IVR treatment were reviewed retrospectively. The indications of vitrectomy in 11 vitrectomized eyes were intravitreal hemorrhage (n = 8) and epiretinal membrane (n = 3). The best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and total macular volume (TMV) were measured at baseline and at months 6, 12, 18, and 24 of the follow-up. The number of IVR injections, the duration between diagnosis of DME and IVR injection, and the hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level at baseline were also recorded. Baseline demographics, HbA1c, BCVA, CMT, and TMV values were similar between two groups (p>0.05). The duration between diagnosis of DME and IVR injections was similar in both groups (16 ± 5 months vs. 13 ± 4 months, respectively; p=0.11). IVR injection was performed 6.3 times in vitrectomized eyes and 6.1 times in nonvitrectomized eyes during the 24-month period (p>0.05). The mean BCVA improved significantly during the 24-month period in both groups. The improvements in BCVA, in CMT, and in TMV were more significant at month 6 (p=0.036) group, at month 12 (p=0.013), at month 12 (p=0.021), and month 24 (p=0.021) in nonvitrectomized eyes, respectively, while there was no difference in improvements of BCVA, CMT, and TMV in vitrectomized group at each visit. Treatment effected by time in terms of BCVA, CMT, and TMV values in all groups (p=0.0004, p<0.0001, p<0.0001, respectively), not by time-group interaction and group (all p values >0.05). In conclusion, IVR treatment for DME is equally effective in both groups. However, the response to treatment is seen earlier in nonvitrectomized eyes compared to vitrectomized eyes.