Publications (2)5.29 Total impact
-
Article: Effect of needle type and injection technique on pain level and vitreal reflux in intravitreal injection.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To evaluate the amount of reflux and degree of pain with intravitreal injection (IVT) using 6 different types of syringes/needles and 5 techniques of scleral incision, including 3 modifications of a beveled scleral incision. This was a study conducted in 205 eyes of 205 patients. IVT of bevacizumab for retinal pharmacotherapy with 6 types of needles and 5 techniques of scleral incision. The severity of subjectively evaluated pain (0-10) and the width of the subconjunctival bleb arising from the vitreal reflux. Secondary outcomes were increase in intraocular pressure and complication rate. The straight technique caused greater vitreal reflux than the beveled approaches, when compared individually or as a group (P < 0.01). No difference in the severity of pain was found among all 5 types of incisions (P > 0.05). There was greater reflux with 26- and 27-gauge needles in comparison to 29- and 30-gauge needles (P < 0.001); however, the width of the needle significantly affected the degree of reflux only when using the nonbeveled incision (P < 0.001). The patients injected with the 26- or 27-gauge needle experienced more pain matched to the 29- and 30-gauge needles (P < 0.001). No difference was found between the incision technique or width of subconjunctival reflux and the increase in intraocular pressure (P > 0.05). Postinjection events included transient mild uveitis, disease-related vitreous hemorrhage, foreign body sensation, conjunctival hemorrhage, and mild punctuate keratitis. The beveled scleral incision showed benefit in performing IVTs. The 29- and 30-gauge needles caused less pain.Journal of ocular pharmacology and therapeutics: the official journal of the Association for Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics 02/2011; 27(2):197-203. · 1.46 Impact Factor -
Article: Ability of new vital dyes to stain intraocular membranes and tissues in ocular surgery.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To evaluate the ability of novel dyes to stain lens capsule (LC), internal limiting membrane (ILM), epiretinal membrane (ERM), and vitreous. Experimental study in animal and human donor eyes. Thirteen dyes, methyl violet, crystal violet, eosin Y, sudan black B, methylene blue, toluidine blue, light green, indigo carmine, fast green, congo red, evans blue, brilliant blue, and bromophenol blue, were injected onto the LC and ILM of enucleated porcine eyes. The vitreous was stained with 2 mL of dyes for 1 minute. Six dyes (indigo carmine, evans blue, fast green, light green, bromophenol blue, and brilliant blue) were selected for experiments in human donor eyes and freshly removed ERM. In the porcine eyes, ILM staining with methylene blue, toluidine blue, indigo carmine, evans blue, bromophenol blue, and fast green was moderate, and methyl violet, crystal violet, brilliant blue, or sudan black resulted in strong staining. Methyl violet, crystal violet, sudan black, toluidine blue, and methylene blue caused histologic damage in porcine retinas. Vitreous examination revealed moderate staining with congo red, crystal violet, fast green, eosin Y, methylene blue, toluidine blue, brilliant blue, bromophenol blue, and methyl violet and strong staining with light green and evans blue. ERMs showed strong staining with 0.5% evans blue and moderate staining with 0.5% light green, fast green, brilliant blue, and bromophenol blue. Evaluation of donor eyes disclosed moderate staining with evans blue, light green, and bromophenol blue and strong staining with 0.5% brilliant blue. Moderate or strong staining of the vitreous occurred with most dyes. LC evaluation showed moderate staining with 0.5% evans blue, fast green, and brilliant blue, whereas 0.5% light green produced strong LC staining. Brilliant blue shows the best ILM staining, whereas bromophenol blue, evans blue, and light green also stain ILM. Most dyes bind well to LC, vitreous, and ERM.American journal of ophthalmology 11/2009; 149(2):265-77. · 3.83 Impact Factor
