{"title":"雷尼单抗治疗视网膜颞下分支静脉阻塞的疗效对比:一年随访。","authors":"Esra Turkseven Kumral, Nursal Melda Yenerel, Nimet Yesim Ercalik, Levent Karabas","doi":"10.14744/bej.2022.46794","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of the study was to compare ranibizumab treatment response of macular edema secondary to superior and inferior temporal branch retinal vein occlusion.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixty-four eyes of 64 patients treated with 0.5 mg/0.05 mL ranibizumab due to macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion were enrolled in this retrospective study. Thirty-eight eyes with superior temporal branch retinal vein occlusion were classified as Group 1 and 26 eyes with inferior temporal branch retinal vein occlusion as Group 2. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and the number of intravitreal injections were evaluated and compared between the groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean baseline, 3<sup>rd</sup>, 6<sup>th</sup>, 9<sup>th</sup>, and 12<sup>th</sup> month BCVA values in Group 1 were 0.77±0.47, 0.37±0.20, 0.37±0.22, 0.38±0.24, and 0.35±0.18 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) and in Group 2 were 0.75±0.45, 0.37±0.18, 0.35±0.19, 0.32±0.17, and 0.28±0.20 logMAR, respectively. The mean baseline, 3<sup>rd</sup>, 6<sup>th</sup>, 9<sup>th</sup>, and 12<sup>th</sup> month CMT values in Group 1 were 522.92±136.01, 318.03±66.65, 287.53±48.27, 271.95±32.47, and 280.47±91.66 µm and in Group 2 were 524.08±145.51, 289.85±53.08, 268.96±31.57, 260.77±30.22, and 244.04±44.78 µm, respectively. BCVA and CMT improved significantly within both groups after the treatment (p<0.05) and there was no statistically significant difference between the groups (p>0.05). However, a significantly higher number of injections was needed for Group 1.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Ranibizumab improved the visual and anatomical outcomes similarly in both superior and inferior temporal branch retinal vein occlusion with macular edema. However, more frequent injections were needed to achieve the same efficacy in superior temporal branch retinal vein occlusion.</p>","PeriodicalId":8740,"journal":{"name":"Beyoglu Eye Journal","volume":"7 3","pages":"207-212"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/17/5d/BEJ-7-207.PMC9522989.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Ranibizumab Treatment Response of Superior and Inferior Temporal Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion: A Year Follow-Up.\",\"authors\":\"Esra Turkseven Kumral, Nursal Melda Yenerel, Nimet Yesim Ercalik, Levent Karabas\",\"doi\":\"10.14744/bej.2022.46794\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of the study was to compare ranibizumab treatment response of macular edema secondary to superior and inferior temporal branch retinal vein occlusion.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixty-four eyes of 64 patients treated with 0.5 mg/0.05 mL ranibizumab due to macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion were enrolled in this retrospective study. Thirty-eight eyes with superior temporal branch retinal vein occlusion were classified as Group 1 and 26 eyes with inferior temporal branch retinal vein occlusion as Group 2. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and the number of intravitreal injections were evaluated and compared between the groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean baseline, 3<sup>rd</sup>, 6<sup>th</sup>, 9<sup>th</sup>, and 12<sup>th</sup> month BCVA values in Group 1 were 0.77±0.47, 0.37±0.20, 0.37±0.22, 0.38±0.24, and 0.35±0.18 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) and in Group 2 were 0.75±0.45, 0.37±0.18, 0.35±0.19, 0.32±0.17, and 0.28±0.20 logMAR, respectively. The mean baseline, 3<sup>rd</sup>, 6<sup>th</sup>, 9<sup>th</sup>, and 12<sup>th</sup> month CMT values in Group 1 were 522.92±136.01, 318.03±66.65, 287.53±48.27, 271.95±32.47, and 280.47±91.66 µm and in Group 2 were 524.08±145.51, 289.85±53.08, 268.96±31.57, 260.77±30.22, and 244.04±44.78 µm, respectively. BCVA and CMT improved significantly within both groups after the treatment (p<0.05) and there was no statistically significant difference between the groups (p>0.05). However, a significantly higher number of injections was needed for Group 1.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Ranibizumab improved the visual and anatomical outcomes similarly in both superior and inferior temporal branch retinal vein occlusion with macular edema. However, more frequent injections were needed to achieve the same efficacy in superior temporal branch retinal vein occlusion.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8740,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Beyoglu Eye Journal\",\"volume\":\"7 3\",\"pages\":\"207-212\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/17/5d/BEJ-7-207.PMC9522989.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Beyoglu Eye Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14744/bej.2022.46794\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Beyoglu Eye Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14744/bej.2022.46794","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of Ranibizumab Treatment Response of Superior and Inferior Temporal Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion: A Year Follow-Up.
Objectives: The aim of the study was to compare ranibizumab treatment response of macular edema secondary to superior and inferior temporal branch retinal vein occlusion.
Methods: Sixty-four eyes of 64 patients treated with 0.5 mg/0.05 mL ranibizumab due to macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion were enrolled in this retrospective study. Thirty-eight eyes with superior temporal branch retinal vein occlusion were classified as Group 1 and 26 eyes with inferior temporal branch retinal vein occlusion as Group 2. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and the number of intravitreal injections were evaluated and compared between the groups.
Results: The mean baseline, 3rd, 6th, 9th, and 12th month BCVA values in Group 1 were 0.77±0.47, 0.37±0.20, 0.37±0.22, 0.38±0.24, and 0.35±0.18 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) and in Group 2 were 0.75±0.45, 0.37±0.18, 0.35±0.19, 0.32±0.17, and 0.28±0.20 logMAR, respectively. The mean baseline, 3rd, 6th, 9th, and 12th month CMT values in Group 1 were 522.92±136.01, 318.03±66.65, 287.53±48.27, 271.95±32.47, and 280.47±91.66 µm and in Group 2 were 524.08±145.51, 289.85±53.08, 268.96±31.57, 260.77±30.22, and 244.04±44.78 µm, respectively. BCVA and CMT improved significantly within both groups after the treatment (p<0.05) and there was no statistically significant difference between the groups (p>0.05). However, a significantly higher number of injections was needed for Group 1.
Conclusion: Ranibizumab improved the visual and anatomical outcomes similarly in both superior and inferior temporal branch retinal vein occlusion with macular edema. However, more frequent injections were needed to achieve the same efficacy in superior temporal branch retinal vein occlusion.