Bevacizumab as adjuvant therapy in the management of pterygium: a systematic review and Meta-analysis.

AIM: To evaluate the clinical effect of bevacizumab in pterygium treatment. METHODS: A systematic review and quantitative Meta-analysis was performed. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane database were searched for eligible literatures published in English until June 2016. The endpoint was recurrence rate and pooled risk ratio (RR) was calculated. RESULTS: Nine eligible studies were included and Meta-analysis results showed no significantly difference in patients treated with bevacizumab in short term follow-up [3mo: RR=0.70 (0.34, 1.45); 6mo: RR=0.55 (0.23, 1.32)] compared with control groups. No significant effects were observed in favor of bevacizumab in subgroup analyses: patients with subconjunctival injection of bevacizumab [3mo: RR=0.95 (0.70, 1.29); 6mo: RR=0.83 (0.55, 1.28)], primary pterygium [3mo: RR=0.59 (0.23, 1.54; 6mo: RR=0.59 (0.23, 1.53)], simple pterygium excision [3mo: 0.32 (0.05, 2.04), P=0.23; 6mo: 0.27 (0.05, 1.53)] and excision with conjunctival autograft [3mo: 1.51 (0.25, 9.15); 6mo: 1.11 (0.06, 21.69)]. CONCLUSION: In this Meta-analysis, we did not found the significant effect of bevacizumab in pterygium treatment, at least in short term follow-up (3mo and 6mo).

Preoperative Biometric Parameters Predict the Vault after ICL Implantation: A Retrospective Clinical Study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the correlation between the preoperative biometric parameters of the anterior segment and the vault after implantable Collamer lens (ICL) implantation via this retrospective study. DESIGN: Retrospective clinical study. METHODS: A total of 78 eyes from 41 patients who underwent ICL implantation surgery were included in this study. Preoperative biometric parameters, including white-to-white (WTW) diameter, central corneal thickness, keratometer, pupil diameter, anterior chamber depth, sulcus-to-sulcus diameter, anterior chamber area (ACA) and central curvature radius of the anterior surface of the lens (Lenscur), were measured. Lenscur and ACA were measured with Rhinoceros 5.0 software on the image scanned with ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM). The vault was assessed by UBM 3 months after surgery. Multiple stepwise regression analysis was employed to identify the variables that were correlated with the vault. RESULTS: The results showed that the vault was correlated with 3 variables: ACA (22.4 ± 4.25 mm2), WTW (11.36 ± 0.29 mm) and Lenscur (9.15 ± 1.21 mm). The regressive equation was: vault (mm) = 1.785 + 0.017 × ACA + 0.051 × Lenscur - 0.203 × WTW. CONCLUSIONS: Biometric parameters of the anterior segment (ACA, WTW and Lenscur) can predict the vault after ICL implantation using a new regression equation.

Implantable collamer lens versus iris-fixed phakic intraocular lens implantation to correct myopia: a meta-analysis.

This study is a meta-analysis comparing the efficacy, predictability, and safety of correcting myopia via implantation of two types of phakic intraocular lens (PIOLs): the implantable collamer lens (ICL) and iris-fixed PIOL. The Cochrane library, Pubmed, and EMBASE were searched. Study selection, data exclusion, and quality assessment were performed by two independent observers. The pooled relative risk (RR), pooled standardized mean difference (SMD), and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to compare lenses. Seven studies, involving 511 eyes, were included. The pooled SMD in postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) comparing ICLs to iris-fixed PIOLs was -0.22 (95% CI, -0.58 to 0.13; P = .22). The pooled RR values of UDVA of 20/20 or better and of 20/40 or better comparing ICLs to iris-fixed PIOLs were 1.15 (95% CI, 0.89 to 1.47; P = .29) and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.95 to 1.08; P = .75), respectively. The pooled RR of loss of best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) and gain in BSCVA comparing ICLs to iris-fixed PIOLs were 1.20 (95% CI, 0.24 to 6.00; P = .82) and 1.14 (95% CI, 0.89 to 1.48; P = .31), respectively. The pooled RR comparing ICLs to iris-fixed PIOLs was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.29 to 2.12; P = .63) for all reported complications and 2.80 (95% CI, 1.04 to 7.52; P = .04) for severe complications. The pooled RR of achieving a result within ± 0.5 D (diopter) of the intended target comparing ICLs to iris-fixed PIOLs was 1.35 (95% CI, 1.04 to 1.77; P = .03). Overall, there is no significant difference in efficacy between the two types of PIOLs or in safety, except that the ICL is associated with a greater incidence of severe complications, especially anterior subcapsular cataract, primarily in the Version 2 and Version 3 groups. However, ICL has better predictability.