4.3 Article Proceedings Paper

Randomized controlled European multicenter trial on the prevention of cystoid macular edema after cataract surgery in diabetics: ESCRS PREMED Study Report 2

期刊

JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY
卷 44, 期 7, 页码 836-847

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.05.015

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons (ESCRS), Dublin, Ireland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To compare the efficacy of perioperative treatment strategies, in addition to topical bromfenac 0.09% and dexamethasone 0.1%, to reduce the risk for developing cystoid macular edema (CME) after uneventful cataract surgery in diabetic patients. Setting: Twelve European study centers. Design: Randomized clinical trial. Methods: Diabetic patients having phacoemulsification cataract surgery were randomly allocated to receive no additional treatment, a subconjunctival injection with 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide, an intravitreal injection with 1.25 mg bevacizumab, or a combination of both. The main outcomes were the difference in central subfield mean macular thickness, corrected distance visual acuity, and the incidence of CME and clinically significant macular edema within 6 and 12 weeks postoperatively. Results: The study comprised 213 patients. At 6 and 12 weeks postoperatively, the central subfield mean macular thickness was 12.3 tm and 9.7 pm lower, respectively, in patients who received subconjunctival triamcinolone acetonide than patients who did not (P =.007 and P =.014, respectively). No patient who received subconjunctival triamcinolone acetonide developed CME. Intravitreal bevacizumab had no significant effect on macular thickness. Conclusions: Diabetic patients who received a subconjunctival injection with triamcinolone acetonide at the end of cataract surgery had a lower macular thickness and macular volume at 6 and 12 weeks postoperatively than patients who did not. Intravitreal bevacizumab had no significant effect. (C) 2018 ASCRS and ESCRS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据