RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Glaucoma, the silent thief of sight, is one of the most common vision-threatening conditions. Even though POAG (primary open angle glaucoma) is more common, PACG (primary angle closure glaucoma) is the dreaded variant. ISGEO (International Society for Geographical and Epidemiological Ophthalmology) has classified primary angle closure as PACS (primary angle closure suspect), PAC (primary angle closure), and PACG (primary angle closure glaucoma. The inconspicuous nature of PACS makes its diagnosis and treatment very tricky. PURPOSE: To determine which cases are best suited for laser peripheral iridotomy. SYNOPSIS: Laser peripheral iridotomy is the gold standard for acute primary angle closure glaucoma treatment. But there is a lot of confusion regarding its use in PACS as a prophylactic measure. We have tried to throw light on laser peripheral iridotomy, a much debatable topic. The video focuses on various trials regarding laser peripheral iridotomy, the indications, side effects, and contraindications. We have also discussed its use as a therapeutic and prophylactic procedure. HIGHLIGHTS: The video highlights that the approach of laser peripheral iridotomy should be on a case-by-case basis. VIDEO LINK: https://youtu.be/kiEYI9ct2Oo.
Asunto(s)
Glaucoma de Ángulo Cerrado , Presión Intraocular , Iridectomía , Iris , Terapia por Láser , Humanos , Glaucoma de Ángulo Cerrado/cirugía , Glaucoma de Ángulo Cerrado/diagnóstico , Glaucoma de Ángulo Cerrado/fisiopatología , Iridectomía/métodos , Presión Intraocular/fisiología , Terapia por Láser/métodos , Iris/cirugía , GonioscopíaRESUMEN
Neuroprotective therapies in glaucoma may play a role in preventing ischemia and oxidative damage that results in apoptosis of retinal ganglion cells and optic nerve damage. Although intraocular pressure (IOP) is the only known modifiable risk factor for glaucoma, disease progression commonly occurs despite IOP control, suggesting that factors other than IOP play a role in its pathogenesis and can potentially act as targets for neuroprotection. Factors including mediators of apoptosis, ischemic changes, poor ocular blood flow and neurotoxins have been hypothesized to play a role in glaucoma progression. Neuroprotective targets include glutamate-induced neurotoxicity, nitric oxidase synthetase, neurotropins, calcium channel receptors, free radicals, vascular insufficiency, the rho-kinase pathway, and more. Drugs related to these factors are being evaluated for their role in neuroprotection, although this area of investigation faces several challenges including limited evidence for these agents' efficacy in clinical studies. Additionally, while IOP-lowering therapies are considered neuroprotective as they generally slow the progress of glaucoma progression, they are limited by the extent of their effect beyond IOP control. The aim of this article is to review the current treatment options available for neuroprotection and to explore the drugs in the pipeline.
Asunto(s)
Glaucoma , Fármacos Neuroprotectores , Humanos , Presión Intraocular , Neuroprotección/fisiología , Fármacos Neuroprotectores/metabolismo , Fármacos Neuroprotectores/farmacología , Fármacos Neuroprotectores/uso terapéutico , Células Ganglionares de la Retina/patologíaRESUMEN
Purpose: To assess patient experience of intravitreal injections using vital-signs, visual-experience, pain-rating and emotional response during intravitreal anti-VEGF injections. Methods: A prospective observational study of patient experience of intravitreal anti-VEGF injections done following metrics were collected pre-injection, during injection, and post-injection: pain assessment using visual analog score, fear-response rating, visual-experience questionnaire, and vital-signs. Results: A total of one-hundred-and-seventy-four patients undergoing intravitreal anti-VEGF injections for retinal pathologies were included in the study. Mean age was 58.8 ± 10.4 years in <5 injection group (n = 133) and 59.02 ± 9.0 years in ≥5 injection group (n = 41) (P = 0.90).During injection, 90.2% of patients in <5 injection group reported moderate or severe pain compared to 78% of patients in ≥5 injection group. In pre and post-injection phases, mild-to-moderate pain was reported in both groups (P = <0.001). Ninety-two (52.9%) patients reported having a mild frightening experience. There was no statistical significance in patients assessment of fear with respect to age, sex, or number of injections. The Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) during and following injection ((SBP 171.7 ± 21.1,150.8 ± 16.2) procedures was significantly higher in cases with <5 injections when comparing to cases with >5 injections (SBP 159.7 ± 26.4, 143.2 ± 17.0) (P = 0.003), (P = 0.011). DBP, heart rate, pulse rate measurements were similar among patients in all phases of the study. Conclusion: We report a large sample size with comprehensive assessments of the patient experience. Higher pain ratings in the <5 injection group, the increase in the SBP in the pre-and during injection phases, and the overall rating of mild-to-moderate fear during the procedure.