When Uveitis and Hypotony Meets Bilateral Iris Retraction Syndrome: A Rare but Serious Complication of Nivolumab Treatment.

Introduction: Iris retraction syndrome (IRS) is a rare clinical condition characterized by a backbowing of the iris positioned on the lens with a complete pupillary block. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are a new class of immunomodulating agents used in cancer therapy, and although they have high response rates, ophthalmic-related side effects have been reported. We report a rare case of bilateral IRS with hypotony after therapy with nivolumab. Case Presentation: We present a case of bilateral IRS with hypotony, 3 mm Hg OD and 5 mm Hg OS, after therapy with nivolumab. The patient presented with decreased vision, corneal edema, keratic precipitates, deep anterior chamber with posterior synechiae, and hypotony maculopathy. Anterior segment OCT revealed a sharp posterior displacement of the iridolenticular diaphragm consistent with IRS. Discontinuation of nivolumab until ocular improvement was suggested, following oncologic consultation. Four months later, the patient exhibited iris bombé with angle closure and increased IOP. This was managed with phacoemulsification and concomitant surgical iridectomy. One month after surgery, the patient's IOP had returned to physiologic values, and the iris configuration had returned to normal. Conclusion: The exact mechanism of IRS remains unclear, but it is suggested that an aqueous imbalance, in conjunction with uveitis and hypotony, creates an anterio-posterior movement of the iridolenticular diaphragm when the pupillary block is present. Our case highlights the importance of monitoring patients receiving ICIs for ophthalmic adverse effects and prompt management to prevent permanent visual damage. In conclusion, this is the first reported case of IRS after therapy with ICIs. Further research is needed to fully understand the exact mechanism by which it is induced.

Limbal reconstruction in uveitic glaucoma patient with exposed Ahmed valve coincident with corneal melting and iris prolapse using multiple corneoscleral allografts.

Aim: To present a complex case of Ahmed tube exposure 6 months after the implantation associated with corneal melting and iris prolapse, and the surgical reposition that required multiple allografts and limbal reconstruction. Methods: A 60-year-old patient arrived at the emergency room with tube exposure combined with corneal melting and iris prolapse from a previously placed Ahmed valve 6 months prior. Our approach was to use one corneoscleral graft to repair the melted cornea and avoid further iris prolapse and a second scleral graft to cover the repositioned tube. Upon completion of conjunctival dissection, cleaning and deepithelization of the melted cornea and the tube by application of alcohol 100% followed. A new entry point was made for the tube and was covered using an alcohol-preserved scleral allograft and the previous entry point was repaired using a corneoscleral allograft with the corneal aspect restoring the limbus and avoiding further iris protrusion. Results: 6 months follow-up of the patient showed excellent recovery, anatomical restoration, and IOP normalization. Conclusion: Surgical repair of these cases can be very demanding, and requires surgical improvisation and prolonged surgical time. The literature remains very limited on how a surgeon should approach similar cases, which are the crucial tips, and which are the missteps that should be avoided. In this case, we used multiple scleral/corneoscleral allografts in a specific orientation and different sutures to reconstruct the damaged limbal area and restore the anatomy. Abbreviations: VA = Visual Acuity, GDD = Glaucoma Drainage Device, IOP = Intra Ocular Pressure.

Branch retinal vein occlusion following ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) vaccine.

PURPOSE: To present a case of branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) following ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) Vaccine. METHODS: Case report. RESULTS: A 60-year old otherwise healthy Caucasian male, presented to the ophthalmology emergency clinic complaining of sudden, painless vision loss in his right eye of 24 h" duration. The patient had received Vaxveria seven days prior. The clinical and fundus examination of the right eye established the diagnosis of BRVO. CONCLUSION: The present case descibes the occurrence of BRVO soon after the vaccination with the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. The close temporal relationship between the BRVO incidence and the vaccination is reinforced by the lack of othe subjective cause to justify the episode.