Assessment for Macular Thickness after Uncomplicated Phacoemulsification Using Optical Coherence Tomography.

PURPOSE: Macular edema including cystoid macular edema is one of the main causes of unfavorable visual outcomes after cataract surgery. The macular thickness and the occurrence of macular edema after uncomplicated cataract surgery was evaluated using optical coherence tomography (OCT) in this study. METHODS: Macular map images were taken by OCT before surgery and at 1 week, 1 month, and 2 months postsurgery. The subjects were classified into two groups (group 1, patients with no macular edema; group 2, patients with macular edema). Group 2 was defined as increase in central macular thickness (CMT) by 30% compared with that before surgery. The risk factors for macular edema were evaluated. Group 2 was divided into two subgroups: subclinical macular edema (group 2A) and cystoid macular edema (group 2B) and they were assessed in terms of the clinical course of best-corrected visual acuity and CMT. RESULTS: A total of 376 patients were enrolled in this study, of which 36 (9.57%, group 2) showed macular edema measured by OCT after the surgery. Univariate analysis for group 1 and 2 revealed that intracameral injection of epinephrine during phacoemulsification was associated with the development of macular edema. In group 2, five patients (1.33%) developed cystoid macular edema. Statistically significant differences in the clinical course of CMT were observed at 2 months (201.2 ± 23.1, 250.0 ± 29.8, and 371.0 ± 160.3 in group 1, group 2A, and group 2B, respectively; p < 0.001) and 1 month postoperatively (198.5 ± 23.6, 237.8 ± 40.9, and 314.0 ± 104.5 in group 1, group 2A, and group 2B, respectively; p < 0.001). Group 2B required additional treatment and eventually achieved best-corrected visual acuity of >0.2 with CMT in the normal range. CONCLUSIONS: The intracameral injection of epinephrine may cause macular edema after uncomplicated cataract surgery. Examination of CMT using OCT is recommended for the early detection of macular edema.

Comparison of outcomes of scleral fixation with and without pars plana vitrectomy for the treatment of dislocated intraocular lens.

PURPOSE: To investigate the surgical outcomes of scleral fixation with either pars plana vitrectomy (ppV) or anterior vitrectomy (AV) for the treatment of dislocated intraocular lens (IOL). METHODS: By retrospective review of electronic medical records, patients with in-the-bag spontaneous IOL dislocation who underwent IOL exchange with scleral fixation were included and grouped according to the vitrectomy method: ppV (group 1) and AV (group 2). Post-operative surgical outcomes including visual acuity (log MAR), spherical equivalent, and surgically induced astigmatism (SIA) and complications were investigated and analyzed. RESULTS: After 6 months, post-operative measurements showed an average visual acuity of 0.16 ± 0.20, spherical equivalent of -1.48 ± 1.53D (diopters), and refractive shift of -0.19 ± 0.44D in group 1 (n = 19). There was no statistically significant difference between the measurements of group 1 and group 2 (n = 20) (0.10 ± 0.12, -2.00 ± 1.71D, -0.39 ± 0.57D, respectively) (p = 0.51, p = 0.29, p = 0.16, respectively). When analyzed by the algebraic and vector methods, group 1 did show a higher magnitude of surgically induced astigmatisms (1.61 ± 1.50D, 2.10 ± 1.03D, respectively) than did group 2 (0.49 ± 1.02D, 1.31 ± 0.83D respectively) (both p's = 0.01). There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications except for vitreoretinal complications, which were higher in group 2 (25%), compared with group 1 (0%) (p = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: Both ppV and AV are appropriate options in patients who need IOL exchange with scleral fixation based on visual outcomes, refractive shifts, and complication rates. In terms of managing astigmatism, the AV procedure may be the better option.