4.6 Article

Functional and Anatomical Outcomes in Patients With Serous Retinal Detachment in Diabetic Macular Edema Treated With Ranibizumab

Journal

Publisher

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.16-20855

Keywords

diabetic macular edema; ranibizumab; serous retinal detachment

Categories

Funding

  1. AVOPH, Association for Research and Education, Avicenne Hospital, Bobigny, France

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE. To assess the effect of serous retinal detachment (SRD) on functional and anatomical outcomes in ranibizumab-treated patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). METHODS. All consecutive ranibizumab-treated patients with SRD were included in this retrospective study. For each patient with SRD, a patient without SRD with the same baseline best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was randomly included for adjustment on their baseline BCVA. All patients with SRD were included in group 1 (G1) and those without SRD in G2. The primary endpoint was the mean change in BCVA between baseline and month 12 (M12). Secondary endpoints were the mean change in central retinal thickness (CRT) between baseline and M12, injection number, and proportion of patients who gained/lost >= 15 letters. RESULTS. Seventy-eight eyes were included, 39 in each group. Baseline BCVA was similar in both groups (45.2 and 45.3 letters). Mean change in BCVA between baseline and M12 was not statistically different: 11 6 12 letters in G1 and 12 6 13 letters in G2 (P = 0.78). Baseline CRT was 650 6 130 lm in G1 and 480 6 79 lm in G2. Mean change in CRT was -235 +/- 170 lm in G1 and -130 +/- 96 lm in G2 (P = 0.013). Patients received 5.2 and 5.5 injections in G1 and G2 (P = 0.46). In group 1, 38.5% and 2.6% of patients respectively gained and lost >= 15 letters versus 41% (P = 0.1) and 5.1% (P = 0.1) in G2. CONCLUSIONS. Similar BCVA gains were observed regardless of the presence of SRD. The higher visual gain usually observed in DME with SRD could be associated with a lower baseline BCVA.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available