Purpose: To compare the functional and anatomical outcomes after a 0.2 µg/day fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant between vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes with chronic diabetic macular edema (DME). Methods: This is a retrospective, comparative analysis of 43 eyes with chronic DME. All eyes were treated with a single 0.2 µg/day FAc implant and followed up for a mean period of 8.5 months (median, 6.0 months; range, 1-21 months). The patients with a 0.2 µg/day FAc implant were divided into 2 groups: 24 eyes which had undergone pars plana vitrectomy prior to 0.2 µg/day FAc (group 1) and 19 eyes which had not been vitrectomized (group 2). Outcome measures included mean changes in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters, central subfield foveal thickness (CSFT), and intraocular pressure (IOP), and were measured prior to administration of the 0.2 µg FAc implant, in the first week, at month 1, and quarterly thereafter. Results: Following the 0.2 μg/day FAc implant, the mean change in BCVA at the last observation point, from baseline, was +16.9 ± 3.39 (mean ± SE) letters (p ≤ 0.001) in group 1 and +8.2 ± 4.62 letters (p = 0.092) in group 2. From baseline, a gain of ≥15 letters was achieved in 37.5 and 36.8% of the eyes in group 1 and group 2, respectively. Additionally, an improvement in vision ≥20/40 in 29.2% of group 1 and 15.8% of group 2 was observed. The mean change in CSFT was -217.7 ± 40.8 µm and -155.6 ± 43.4 µm in group 1 and group 2, respectively. The mean change in IOP was +1.6 ± 0.7 mm Hg in group 1 and +0.8 ± 1.3 mm Hg in group 2, relative to baseline. At the last observation point, there were no significant differences between groups 1 and 2 (p > 0.05) in terms of their changes in BCVA, CSFT, and IOP. Conclusion: The results from the real-life practice study demonstrate that the 0.2 μg/day FAc implant is effective and well tolerated in vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes of patients with chronic DME. Our results support the use of a 0.2 μg/day FAc implant to obtain long-term functional and anatomical improvements (mean, 8.5 months; median, 6.0 months) in vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes.

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to provide objective and real-life data concerning the impact of the COVID-19 pandemicon ophthalmology residency training in Portugal.Material and Methods: Descriptive survey-based study applied to current Portuguese ophthalmology residents (n = 80 eligible).Results: Seventy-five residents participated (94% response rate). All except one (99%) admitted a change in their routine clinical practice during the pandemic, and most (89%) continued to be engaged in ophthalmology department duties. Twenty-five percent were deployed to COVID-19 units, which was combined with ophthalmological activities in about half of them (47%). A significant proportion of participants stated that they were enrolled in the following ophthalmological activities: emergency/inpatient care (87%), outpatient visits (73%; general 70% vs subspecialty 29%), and surgical procedures (64%). Twenty-five percent did not assist in any outpatient visits and 36% did not participate in any surgical procedures. On a scale from 1 (no impact) to 5 (maximum impact), most participants classified their perceived negative impact of the pandemic on the training program as 3 (24%), 4 (40%), or 5 (27%). Participants highly agreed with the extension of the residency program (80%) in order to to make up for training disruption.Discussion: Most trainees provided ophthalmological care during the pandemic. However, those clinical activities were essentially related to general and emergency care. Surgical experience was significantly curtailed. As such, strategies are needed to guarantee a high-quality learning process. Further studies are required to develop an international perspective on how ophthalmology training programs have been affected so that educational organizations can make recommendations regarding standardized adjustments to training programs.Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the training of ophthalmology residents nationwide.

PurposeLimited data are available on the efficacy of the 0.2 μg/day fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) implant in eyes with prior vitrectomy. Here, we present a collection of 26 vitrectomized eyes treated with the 0.2 μg/day FAc implant.MethodsRetrospective study involving six centers from four European countries analyzing the safety and efficacy data from patients (26 eyes from 25 patients) with DME and a prior vitrectomy that had been treated with one 0.2 μg/day FAc implant.ResultsPrior intravitreal therapies included anti-VEGF (mean, 3.8 injections) and steroids (mean, 1.9 injections). Pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) was performed in these eyes primarily for abnormalities of vitreoretinal interface, followed by proliferative diabetic retinopathy and vitreous hemorrhage. The 0.2 μg/day FAc implant was injected 24.2 months, on average, after PPV and the mean duration of follow-up after injection was 255 days (range, 90 to 759 days). The mean change in BCVA was +11.7 ETDRS letters (range, −19 to +40 letters; P<0.0004) and the mean change in central foveal thickness (CFT) was −233.5 μm (range, −678 to 274 μm; P<0.0001). The mean change in IOP from baseline at the last visit was +1.4 mm Hg (range, −9 to +8 mm Hg; P=0.0090). Eight eyes initiated or continued IOP lowering medications.ConclusionsThese data suggest the 0.2 μg/day FAc implant is effective in vitrectomized patients with an acceptable safety profile. Further studies are still required to confirm the current findings and to assess the effect of the 0.2 μg/day FAc implant over a longer period of follow-up.

Purpose: To report the surgical outcomes of reoperation of unclosed macular holes after initial vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling. Procedures: Seven eyes of 7 patients were submitted to a second procedure in which five radial retinal incisions were made, as deep as the retinal pigment epithelium, beginning one hole diameter away from its borders and extending centripetally until the hole’s margins, avoiding the papilomacular bundle. Gas tamponade was performed and face-down positioning was recommended. Results: Anatomical closure was achieved in all cases with the second procedure. Functional success was achieved in every patient; there was no loss of best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) lines. Mean line score gain was 5.6 lines (range 1–9 lines), with a mean final BCVA of 0.42 (range 0.05–0.5). Conclusions: Perifoveal relaxing incisions in stage IV macular holes that remained unclosed after internal limiting membrane peeling vitrectomy seem to have a positive effect on MH closure rates. Larger case series and an extended follow-up period are necessary in order to assess the efficacy and safety profile of this so far promising technique.