4.1 Article

Intravitreal pegaptanib combined with diode laser therapy for stage 3+ retinopathy of prematurity in zone I and posterior zone II

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 22, 期 5, 页码 687-694

出版社

WICHTIG EDITORE
DOI: 10.5301/ejo.5000166

关键词

Anti-VEGF; Pegaptanib (Macugen); RetCam photography; Retinopathy of prematurity; Stage 3+; Zone I

资金

  1. Ministry of Health (IGA), Czech Republic [NS/9892-4]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. To investigate efficacy of intravitreal injection of pegaptanib and laser photocoagulation for treatment of stage 3+ retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) affecting zone I and posterior zone II, and to compare the results in terms of regression, development of peripheral retinal vessels, and final structural outcome with conventional laser photocoagulation or combined with cryotherapy. METHODS. In a prospective comparative study, 152 eyes with zone I, II posterior ROP 3+ (76 premature rabies), from 2009 to 2011, were included. Patients were randomly assigned to receive intravitreal pegaptanib (Macugen (R) 0.3 mg = 0.02 mL, Pfizer) with conventional diode laser photocoagulation in group 1 (68 eyes of 34 infants) or only laser therapy combined with cryotherapy in group 2 (84 eyes of 42 infants), bilaterally. The primary outcome of treatment success was defined as absence of recurrence of stage 3+ ROP. The mean follow-up after treatment was 19.3 months in group 1 and 21.5 months in group 2. RESULTS. Final favorable anatomic outcome and stable regression of ROP at last control examination was noted in 89.7% of eyes in group 1 and 60.8% of eyes in group 2. Regression of plus disease and peripheral retinal vessels development appeared significantly more rapidly in group 1. No recurrence of neovascularization (stage 3+ ROP) was identified in 85.4% of patients in group 1 and 50% of patients in group 2. CONCLUSIONS. Results of this study support the administration of intravitreal pegaptanib as useful therapy in the management of stage 3+ ROP.

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

4.1
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