Pars plana vitrectomy in diabetic macular edema.

Department of Ophthalmology, University of Bari, Italy.
Documenta Ophthalmologica (Impact Factor: 1.54). 01/1999; 97(3-4):471-4. DOI: 10.1023/A:1002464307469
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To ascertain the association between the improvement of diabetic macular edema and increased visual acuity after pars plana vitrectomy.
From January 1994 to December 1996 we prospectively studied 18 patients (18 eyes, 7 women and 11 men, mean age 52 years, range 37-68) with type II diabetes and clinically significant macular edema. One group was composed of 9 patients presenting diffuse macular edema (DME); a second group with 9 patients presented cystoid macular edema (CME). All patients underwent pars plana vitrectomy.
Preoperative Snellen visual acuity was 20/143 in DME and 20/441 in CME. In both groups vision increased to 20/136 and 20/205, respectively, postoperatively. For the DME this difference was statistically significant (p<0.05) at 1 month after the surgery, but vision decreased again after 10 months reaching preoperative values.
Our results suggest that pars plana vitrectomy for diabetic macular edema may increase visual acuity in diffuse macular edema, although this increase is only short lived.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Diabetic macular edema is a major cause of visual impairment. The pathogenesis of macular edema appears to be multifactorial. Laser photocoagulation is the standard of care for macular edema. However, there are cases that are not responsive to laser therapy. Several therapeutic options have been proposed for the treatment of this condition. In this review we discuss several factors and mechanisms implicated in the etiology of macular edema (vasoactive factors, biochemical pathways, anatomical abnormalities). It seems that combined pharmacologic and surgical therapy may be the best approach for the management of macular edema in diabetic patients.
    Survey of Ophthalmology 01/2009; 54(1):1-32. · 2.86 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Evidence-based medicine is often misunderstood as 'cookbook medicine with standard recipes' that does not take clinical experience into account. It is, however, supposed to be a basis for decision making in caring for individual patients under consideration of patients' preferences. This seems to be very important, since diabetic retinopathy continues to be the most frequent cause of vision loss in working age adults with negative consequences for patients' quality of life and for health economics. The most important evidence-based therapy for diabetic retinopathy and maculopathy is laser coagulation. Vitrectomy for proliferative stages has also been proven effective by clinical studies. For more recent treatment options like triamcinolone injection and vitrectomy for diabetic macular edema there is a lower level of evidence so far. The Diabetic Retinopathy Study was the first to show the effectiveness of panfundus laser coagulation for a larger group of patients. The Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study in turn serves as a basis for laser coagulation of retinopathy and maculopathy. The Diabetic Retinopathy Vitrectomy Study could show the advantages of timely vitrectomy. Both the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial and the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study could show the value of intensive blood glucose control. Evidence-based medicine on the basis of the studies mentioned above is practiced quite self-evidently in ophthalmo-diabetology. It should be regarded as a helpful tool for special therapeutic situations which still leaves room for one's personal clinical experience to be included. It is somewhat problematic that the term evidence-based medicine seems to be restricted to the results of large randomized studies, because even special problems and very individual, difficult therapeutic questions can be placed on an evidence-based foundation, although at a lower level of evidence, using today's modern means of literature research.
    Ophthalmologica 02/2007; 221(2):132-41. · 1.41 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An abstract is unavailable. This article is available as HTML full text and PDF.
    Evidence-Based Ophthalmology 12/2005; 7(1):38-39.