4.3 Article

Prediction of macular edema exacerbation after phacoemulsification in patients with nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy

Journal

JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY
Volume 28, Issue 8, Pages 1355-1363

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0886-3350(02)01243-9

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To ascertain whether the aqueous humor levels of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and protein can predict the postoperative exacerbation of macular edema in patients with nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) after phacoemulsification surgery for cataract. Setting: Department of Ophthalmology, Diabetes Center, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan. Methods: This prospective study included 104 consecutive patients (104 eyes) with NPDR who had cataract surgery. The concentrations of VEGF and IL-6 in aqueous humor specimens obtained during cataract surgery were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Patients were followed for 6 months to assess the postoperative exacerbation of macular edema. Results: Ninety patients (87%) achieved a visual acuity of 20/40 or better. Exacerbation of macular edema was seen in 30 eyes (29%) after 6 months. Hypertension and the aqueous levels of VEGF, IL-6, and protein were significantly correlated with the exacerbation of macular edema (odds ratio 1.16, 1.33, 1.27, and 1.28, respectively). In contrast, there was no correlation between the exacerbation of macular edema and other systemic factors. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the aqueous VEGF level increase of 100 pg/mL increased the macular edema after phacoemulsification surgery (odds ratio 1.53). Conclusions:A high VEGF level in the aqueous humor predicted a significant risk for the postoperative exacerbation of macular edema. A model was developed to predict the risk exacerbation. (C) 2002 ASCRS and ESCRS.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available