Abstract: Age-related macular degeneration (ARMD), one of the most common causes of blindness, should be considered more due to its exponential increase in the coming 20 years as a result of increasing the age of the population. Whereas more recent studies offered newer scaling systems for ARMD, traditionally it is classified as the early and late stages. The main injury in this disease occurred in retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) and the retina. RPE cells have a crucial role in hemostasis and supporting photoreceptors. In the early stages, damages to RPE are minimal and mainly no treatment is needed because most patients are asymptomatic. However, in the late stages, RPE impairment may lead to the invasion of choroidal vessels into the retina. Although anti-angiogenic agents can inhibit this abnormal growth of blood vessels, they cannot stop it completely, and finally, total loss of retinal cells may occur (geographical atrophy). Since this prevalent disease has not had any cure yet, the concept of substituting the RPE cells should be considered. Repairing the injury to central nervous system cells is almost impossible because the regenerative capacity of these cells is limited. Recently, the use of regenerative substitutes has been suggested to replace damaged tissues. Amniotic membrane (AM) has been raised as a suitable substitute for damaged RPE cells due to all of its unique properties: pluripotency, anti-angiogenic effect, and anti-inflammatory effect. Based on the few studies that have been published so far, it seems that the use of this membrane in the treatment of ARMD can be helpful, but more studies are needed.
Abstract: Intraocular foreign body residue following ophthalmic surgery is rare but may cause severe postoperative occult inflammation. In some cases, small foreign bodies located in the anterior chamber angle may be missed by follow-up ultrasound biomicroscopy (UBM). We report the case of an elderly female whose right eye was injured by a nail and received corneal repair surgery in our hospital. Eleven days post-surgery, we found a mobile, short, translucent, rod-shaped foreign body in the upper corner of the right eye and another in the iris root at 7 o’clock. Two months post-surgery, the patient consulted a doctor due to right eye redness, pain, and vision loss, which was ultimately shown to be associated with foreign body residue resulting in a delayed postoperative inflammatory response. The patient was cured by surgeries and active anti-inflammatory and anti-infection treatments, but the final diagnosis of the patient was infectious endophthalmitis misdiagnosed as uveitis, which worths our consideration. We also review relevant literature on the differentiation of postoperative infectious endophthalmitis from noninfectious uveitis. It’s a reminder that patients with delayed endophthalmitis after open ocular trauma should not exclude the possibility of intraocular foreign bodies. As well clinicians can distinguish infectious endophthalmitis from uveitis by needle aspiration biopsy or vitrectomy for microbial culture in order to determine the need for antibiotic treatment.
Abstract: Submacular haemorrhage (SMH) is a sight threatening complication that can occur in exudative age related macular degeneration (AMD), but has been described to occur more frequently in eyes with polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV). Left untreated, SMH carries a grave visual prognosis. Thus, expedient diagnosis and effective management of this complication is of paramount importance. The treatment strategies for SMH include (I) displacement of blood from the fovea, usually by injection of an expansile gas; (II) pharmacologic clot lysis such as with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA); and (III) treatment of the underlying choroidal neovascularization (CNV) or PCV, such as with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents. These three strategies have been employed in isolation or in combination, some concurrently and others in stages. rtPA has demonstrable effect on the liquefaction of submacular clots but there are remaining uncertainties with regards to the dose, safety and the timing of initial and repeat treatments. Potential side effects of rtPA include retinal pigment epithelial toxicity, increased risk of breakthrough vitreous haemorrhage and systemic toxicity. In cases presenting early, pneumatic displacement alone with anti-VEGF may be sufficient. Anti-VEGF monotherapy is a viable treatment option particularly in patients with thinner SMH and those who are unable to posture post pneumatic displacement.
Background and Objective: Vitreoretinal surgery requires fine micro-surgical training and handling of delicate tissue. To aid in the training of residents and fellows, unique educational modalities exist to help facilitate the development of these microsurgical skills. From virtual simulators to artificial eye models, simulation of the posterior segment has gained an increased focus in vitreoretinal surgical training programs. Development of surgical curricula for vitreoretinal training and attainment of surgical milestones has been a key component in integrating these educational training modalities. We will explore various simulators, eye models, and potential rubrics and discuss unique ways each may help and complement one another to train future vitreoretinal surgeons.
Methods: We conducted a systematic PubMed search of various review studies (from publications in English ranging from January 1978 to December 2020) discussing surgical simulators, eye models, and surgical rubrics for vitreoretinal surgery and their potential impacts upon training.
Key Contents and Findings: Our review assesses the benefits and applicability of various simulators, eye models, and surgical rubrics upon training.
Conclusions: Utilization of vitreoretinal surgical training tools may aid in complementing the hands-on surgical training experience for vitreoretinal surgical fellows. By using simulators and rubrics, we may better be able to standardize training for reaching vitreoretinal surgical milestones and providing adequate feedback to improve surgical competency and ultimately patient outcomes.
Background and Objective: Intraocular lymphoma (IOL) is a heterogenous category of rare malignancies that are often misdiagnosed and underrecognized. The rarity of IOL impedes clinical research and contributes to difficulty in standardizing its management. In this article we review the existing scientific literature to identify the current diagnostic tools and discuss comprehensive management of various categories of IOL. Our objective is to increase disease recognition of IOL as a whole and explore updated management options for each subtype.
Methods: PubMed and Embase were searched for publications using the terms ‘intraocular lymphoma’, ‘vitreoretinal lymphoma’, ‘uveal lymphoma’, ‘iris lymphoma’, ‘choroidal lymphoma’ and ‘ciliary body lymphoma’ published from 1990 to June 2021. Inclusion criteria were English language articles. Exclusion criteria were non-English language articles, case reports and animal studies.
Key Content and Findings: IOL often presents in middle-aged and older patients with symptoms of floaters and vision changes, but a broad array of clinical signs and symptoms are possible depending upon subtype. IOL can be subdivided by location of involvement into vitreoretinal and uveal lymphoma. These subtypes express key differences in their pathophysiology, clinical presentation, histology, prognosis, and treatment. Primary vitreoretinal lymphomas (PVRL) generally originate from B-lymphocytes and are associated with central nervous system (CNS) lymphoma. Ophthalmic findings include retinal pigment epithelium changes with yellow subretinal deposits known as “leopard spotting.” Primary uveal lymphomas generally originate from low-grade B-lymphocytes invading the choroid and carry an improved prognosis compared to vitreoretinal lymphomas. Funduscopic findings of primary uveal lymphoma include yellow to pink-yellow choroidal swelling with infiltrative subconjunctival “salmon-patch” lesions. Diagnosis for IOL is often delayed due to insidious onset, low prevalence, and tendency to mimic diseases such as uveitis. Diagnosis may be challenging, often relying on biopsy with specialized laboratory testing for confirmation of IOL. Optimal treatment regimens are currently debated among experts. Management of IOL is best coordinated in association with neuro-oncology clinicians due to the tendency for intracranial involvement.
Conclusions: IOL represents a group of multiple malignancies with distinct clinicopathologic features. Future outlook for treatment and prognosis of IOL is likely to improve with less invasive molecular diagnostic techniques and increased awareness. Clinicians should be circumspect in all patients with possible IOL and promptly refer to oncologic specialists for rapid evaluation and treatment.
