Laser treatment for diabetic macular edema in the 21st century.

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is the leading cause of blindness in the diabetic population. The diabetes Control and Complications Trial reported that 27% of patients affected by type 1 diabetes develop DME within 9 years of onset. Other studies have shown that in patients with type 2 diabetes, the prevalence increased from 3% to 28% within 5 years of diagnosis to twenty years after the onset. At the present time, despite the enthusiasm for evaluating several new treatments for DME, including the intravitreal therapies for DME (e.g., corticosteroids, and anti-VEGF drugs), laser photocoagulation remains the current gold standard and the only treatment with proven efficacy in a wide range of clinical trials for this condition. Despite being the standard technique for comparison and evaluation of the emerging treatments, we have generally poor understanding of the ETDRS recommendations, and we often forget about the results of laser in DME. The purpose of this review is to update our knowledge on laser photocoagulation for DME with an extensive review of the ETDRS results and discuss the laser techniques. Furthermore, we will describe the new developments in laser systems and review the current indications and results. Finally, we will discuss the results of laser treatments versus the current pharmacological therapies. We conclude by trying to provide a general overview that which laser treatment must be indicated and what types of lasers are currently recommended.

Relationship between diabetic retinopathy, microalbuminuria and overt nephropathy, and twenty-year incidence follow-up of a sample of type 1 diabetic patients.

PURPOSE: To determine the incidence and relationship of diabetic retinopathy (DR), microalbuminuria and overt nephropathy (ON). METHOD: A 20-year prospective study, in a cohort of 110 consecutive type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM) patients, without diabetic retinopathy or microalbuminuria at enrolment in 1990. RESULTS: The 20-year incidence of any DR was 70.91%, microalbuminuria 42.72%, and ON was 23.63%. Regarding the risk factors: pre pubertal age at diagnosis was significant for DR and ON, LDL-cholesterol and CT/HDL-cholesterol were significant for DR but not for microalbuminuria or ON. The relationship between DR and ON demonstrated that DR was a significant risk factor for ON, but ON was significant for sight-threatening DR. At the end of the study, two major groups of patients were formed: patients with DR only and patients with DR and ON. For the development of only DR we can assume that the most important risk factor is the duration of DM, followed by the high levels of HbA1c, pre-pubertal age at onset, and arterial hypertension; and for the development of ON and DR simultaneously, risk factors are higher levels of HbA1c, arterial hypertension, DM duration and pre-pubertal age at onset. CONCLUSIONS: In the current study, two major groups of patients have been formed, those who developed only DR and those who developed DR and ON. For the former, incidence increased as DM duration increased, and for the latter incidence appeared to be closely related to levels of HbA1c.

Resultados de la implantación de la cámara no midriática sobre la población diabética / Results of non-mydriatic fundus camera screening in a diabetic population

Objetivo: Determinar el impacto de la implantación de sistemas de cribado de retinopatía diabética (RD) mediante cámara no midriática (CNM) en una población con diabetes mellitus (DBT). Métodos: Estudio prospectivo de 6 años de duración, sobre el cribado oportunístico de una población de 12 801 pacientes con DBT. Resultados: Se revisaron 10 047 pacientes con DBT, un 78.48% de los individuos con DBT censados. En 86 (0.86%) pacientes no se pudo interpretar la imagen y debieron ser referidos a las consultas de oftalmología. Un total de 1 908 pacientes (19%) requirió dilatación pupilar. A los 6 años se detectó RD en 1 410 pacientes, con una incidencia anual del 6.15%; la forma leve fue la más frecuente, con un 77.94% de casos. La incidencia de edema macular diabético fue del 4.84% anual. Se verificó la presencia de otras enfermedades en 995 pacientes (9.91%). Conclusiones: Podemos extraer que el cribado mediante CNM es altamente útil para poder acceder a una gran parte de la población diabética, en especial aquella que acude con escasa frecuencia al oftalmólogo, lo que nos permite diagnosticar un número importante de individuos susceptibles de tratamiento láser para evitar que presenten ceguera.

Resultados de la implantación de la cámara no midriática sobre la población diabética / Results of non-mydriatic fundus camera screening in a diabetic population

Objetivo: Determinar el impacto de la implantación de sistemas de cribado de retinopatía diabética (RD) mediante cámara no midriática (CNM) en una población con diabetes mellitus (DBT). Métodos: Estudio prospectivo de 6 años de duración, sobre el cribado oportunístico de una población de 12 801 pacientes con DBT. Resultados: Se revisaron 10 047 pacientes con DBT, un 78.48% de los individuos con DBT censados. En 86 (0.86%) pacientes no se pudo interpretar la imagen y debieron ser referidos a las consultas de oftalmología. Un total de 1 908 pacientes (19%) requirió dilatación pupilar. A los 6 años se detectó RD en 1 410 pacientes, con una incidencia anual del 6.15%; la forma leve fue la más frecuente, con un 77.94% de casos. La incidencia de edema macular diabético fue del 4.84% anual. Se verificó la presencia de otras enfermedades en 995 pacientes (9.91%). Conclusiones: Podemos extraer que el cribado mediante CNM es altamente útil para poder acceder a una gran parte de la población diabética, en especial aquella que acude con escasa frecuencia al oftalmólogo, lo que nos permite diagnosticar un número importante de individuos susceptibles de tratamiento láser para evitar que presenten ceguera. (AU)

Results at seven years after the use of intracamerular cefazolin as an endophthalmitis prophylaxis in cataract surgery.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate results after seven years using prophylactic intracameral cefazolin for the prevention of endophthalmitis in cataract surgery. METHODS: A prospective, observational study of all patients submitted to cataract surgery over the period January 1996 to December 2009. All cases of postoperative endophthalmitis over that period were reviewed. The patients were classified in two groups: Group 1 (11,696 patients) operated on between January 1996 and December 2002, Group 2 (13,305 patients) between January 2003 and December 2009 (in whom a 1 mg/0.1 bolus of intracameral cefazolin was instilled). RESULTS: During the study period, 76 cases of endophthalmitis were observed in Group 1, and seven in Group 2. The rate of postoperative endophthalmitis reduced from 0.63% to 0.05% with a cefazolin injection. The relative risk (RR) for endophthalmitis in Group 1 against group 2 was 11.45 [95% CI 5.72-22.84, p < 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: An intracameral bolus injection of cefazolin (1 mg in 0.1 ml solution) at the conclusion of the cataract surgery significantly reduced the rate of postoperative endophthalmitis.