Cardillo José A, Melo Luiz A S, Costa Rogério A, Skaf Mirian, Belfort Rubens, Souza-Filho Acácio A, Farah Michel E, Kuppermann Baruch D
Hospital de Olhos de Araraquara, Araraquara, São Paulo, Brazil.
Ophthalmology. 2005 Sep;112(9):1557-63. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.03.023.
To compare the safety and efficacy of intravitreal versus posterior Sub-Tenon's capsule injection of triamcinolone acetonide for diffuse diabetic macular edema.
Prospective, double-masked, randomized controlled trial.
Twelve patients (24 eyes) with bilateral diffuse diabetic macular edema.
One eye of each patient was randomly assigned to receive a single 4-mg triamcinolone acetonide intravitreal injection and the fellow eye to receive a 40-mg triamcinolone acetonide posterior Sub-Tenon's capsule injection.
Changes in visual acuity and central macular thickness obtained using optical coherence tomography were measured during a 6-month follow-up. Potential treatment complications were monitored, including increases in intraocular pressure (IOP) and cataract progression.
Both intravitreal and Sub-Tenon's capsule injections of triamcinolone acetonide resulted in significant but transient improvements in central macular thickness. The mean (+/-standard deviation [SD]) central macular thickness in eyes with intravitreal injection was significantly thinner than in the Sub-Tenon's capsule-injected eyes at 1 month (226.8+/-41.7 microm and 431.5+/-165.8 microm, respectively; P = 0.002) and 3 months (242.3 +/- 93.9 microm and 364.7+/-78.2 microm, respectively; P = 0.005) after triamcinolone acetonide injection. The mean visual acuity (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution) in the intravitreally injected eyes was significantly better than in the Sub-Tenon's capsule-injected eyes at 3 months post injection (0.832+/-0.293 and 1.107+/-0.339, respectively; P = 0.004). Intraocular pressure did not show any significant difference between the 2 forms of triamcinolone acetonide delivery at any follow-up visit, and no eyes had IOPs >25 mmHg.
The findings from our study neither advocate nor support the use of corticosteroids for the treatment of diabetic macular edema, but do imply that both intravitreal and Sub-Tenon's capsule injections of triamcinolone acetonide may be equally tolerated, with short-term performance clearly favoring the intravitreal (4 mg) more than the SBT capsule (40 mg) route for the anatomic and functional aspects of improvement tested in this investigation.
比较玻璃体内注射与Tenon囊下注射曲安奈德治疗弥漫性糖尿病性黄斑水肿的安全性和有效性。
前瞻性、双盲、随机对照试验。
12例双侧弥漫性糖尿病性黄斑水肿患者(24只眼)。
每位患者的一只眼睛随机接受单次4毫克曲安奈德玻璃体内注射,另一只眼睛接受40毫克曲安奈德Tenon囊下注射。
在6个月的随访期间,使用光学相干断层扫描测量视力和中心黄斑厚度的变化。监测潜在的治疗并发症,包括眼压升高和白内障进展。
玻璃体内注射和Tenon囊下注射曲安奈德均导致中心黄斑厚度显著但短暂改善。在曲安奈德注射后1个月(分别为226.8±41.7微米和431.5±165.8微米;P = 0.002)和3个月(分别为242.3±93.9微米和364.7±78.2微米;P = 0.005),玻璃体内注射组眼睛的平均(±标准差[SD])中心黄斑厚度显著低于Tenon囊下注射组。在注射后3个月,玻璃体内注射组眼睛的平均视力(最小分辨角对数)显著优于Tenon囊下注射组(分别为0.832±0.293和1.107±0.339;P = 0.004)。在任何随访中,两种曲安奈德给药方式的眼压均无显著差异,且没有眼睛的眼压>25 mmHg。
我们的研究结果既不提倡也不支持使用皮质类固醇治疗糖尿病性黄斑水肿,但确实表明玻璃体内注射和Tenon囊下注射曲安奈德的耐受性可能相同,就本研究测试的改善的解剖和功能方面而言,短期内玻璃体内(4毫克)给药途径的表现明显优于Tenon囊下(40毫克)给药途径。