RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The management of compressive optic neuropathy (CON) arising from nontraumatic compression of the optic nerve within the optic canal (OC) remains a topic of controversy. In this study, our aim was to assess the effectiveness and safety of endonasal endoscopic optic nerve decompression (EEOND). In addition, we conducted an analysis of prognostic factors that could potentially influence visual outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted between January 2015 and December 2021, involving adult patients (age > 18) diagnosed with CON and treated with EEOND at our specialized skull base expert center. The study evaluated the impact of surgery on visual acuity (VA), mean deficit (MD), and foveal threshold (FT) of the visual field (VF). These parameters were assessed preoperatively and at 3- and 12-month postoperative follow-ups. The relationship between clinical variables and the differences in postoperative to preoperative VA, MD, and FT of the visual field was analyzed through univariate and multivariate approaches. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients (38 eyes) were included, with a mean age of 52 (±12) years, and a female predominance (78%). The mean ophthalmologic follow-up duration was 38 (±32) months. At the 12-month follow-up, 39% of the patients exhibited a VA improvement of ≥0.2 LogMAR. Partial VF improvement (MD improvement ≥25%) was observed in 55% of the patients, whereas 19% experienced complete recovery. In multivariate analysis, the presence of a type 4 OC was identified as the sole negative prognostic factor for visual improvement (VA and VF) at 12 months. Six patients (17%) encountered minor surgical complications, all of which were managed conservatively and had no impact on visual outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that EEOND is a safe and effective procedure, even in cases of severe and long-lasting CON caused by nontraumatic compression of the optic nerve at the level of the OC.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To assess the impact of intravitreal injections (IVTI) on ocular surface of patients treated with multiple injections. METHODS: Prospective, tricentric study conducted in patients treated with unilateral IVTI. An asepsis protocol with povidone-iodine was used for all patients during IVTI. The primary endpoint was the difference between the pre-IVTI Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI 1) score and that measured on day one (D1) post-IVTI (OSDI 2). Secondary endpoints were the evaluation of predictive factors for OSDI scores, pain assessment on D1, and the Lacrydiag® analysis of tears from the injected eye versus contralateral eye before IVTI. RESULTS: Two hundred and nineteen patients with a mean age of 75.9 ± 10 years were included. The mean OSDI2-OSDI1 difference was 19.2 ± 20.6 (p < 0.001). The mean noninvasive tear break-up time was 6.41 ± 4.59 seconds in the injected eye versus 7.36 ± 4.36 seconds in the contralateral eye (p < 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, the factors significantly associated with the OSDI 2 score were the OSDI 1 score (p < 0.001), the pain score on D1 (p < 0.001) the number of instilled glaucoma eye drop (p = 0.01) and a centre effect (centres 2 and 3 versus centre 1, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our results confirm the impairment of the ocular surface and quality of life immediately after an IVTI. These results suggest 3 levels of action to improve the immediate tolerance: improving the basal status of the ocular surface, reducing the contact time with povidone-iodine that might be toxic to the surface, and improving immediate post-IVTI treatment.
