4.4 Article

Factors influencing the exudation recurrence after cataract surgery in patients previously treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for exudative age-related macular degeneration

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00417-014-2624-4

Keywords

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor; Cataract surgery; Exudative age-related macular degeneration; Phacoemulsification

Categories

Funding

  1. Kim's Eye Hospital Research Center

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To investigate factors influencing exudation recurrence following cataract surgery in patients already treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents for exudative age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Methods A retrospective review of medical records was performed for patients who underwent cataract surgery and had been previously treated with anti-VEGF for exudative AMD. Visual acuity was examined before surgery and 1 and 6 months after surgery. The time between diagnosis and surgery, and the exudation-free period before surgery were examined and compared between patients who had exudation recurrence and those that did not. Results Thirty-nine eyes of 39 patients were included in analyses. The logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution visual acuity was 1.02 +/- 0.58 and had significantly improved 1 month (0.81 +/- 0.62, P < 0.001) and 6 months (0.85 +/- 0.64, P = 0.001) following surgery. Both the diagnosis-to-surgery period (P = 0.001) and the preoperative exudation-free period (P < 0.001) were significantly longer in patients without recurrence than in patients with recurrence. Conclusions Cataract surgery was beneficial in patients previously treated with anti-VEGF for exudative AMD. Our data suggests that cataract surgery should be performed after a sufficiently long exudation-free period to minimize exudation recurrence. But larger prospective studies are required to draw definitive clinical guidelines.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available