4.7 Article

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Intravitreal Bevacizumab Injections with and without Simultaneous Cataract Surgery in Diabetic Patients with Macular Edema

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 12, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12124060

Keywords

bevacizumab; cataract extraction; diabetic retinopathy; macular edema; Irvine-Gass syndrome

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This retrospective study compared the effectiveness of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) injections alone and during cataract surgery in patients with diabetic macular edema. It found that in patients who underwent cataract surgery after IVB injection, there was a significant decrease in central subfield macular thickness.
Intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB), often injected during cataract surgery, is currently the main treatment for diabetic macular edema. This retrospective study aimed to compare the effectiveness of IVB injections alone and during cataract surgery in patients with diabetic macular edema. We examined 43 eyes in 40 patients who underwent cataract surgery with simultaneous IVB injections 3-12 months after IVB injections alone. Best-corrected visual acuity and central subfield macular thickness (CMT) were measured 1-month post-injection. The CMTs of the same eyes with IVB-only first and combined-treatment procedures later were 384 & PLUSMN; 149 vs. 315 & PLUSMN; 109 & mu;m pretreatment (p = 0.0002), and after 1 month, they were 319 & PLUSMN; 102 vs. 419 & PLUSMN; 183 & mu;m (p < 0.0001). In the IVB-only procedure, 56.1% of eyes had CMT < 300 & mu;m 1 month after the injection compared to 32.5% after the combined treatment. Therefore, on average, when IVB was administered during cataract surgery, CMT increased, whereas after IVB injection alone, it effectively decreased. More prospective trials with large sample sizes are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of IVB injection performed simultaneously with cataract surgery.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available