ObjectivesTo compare the efficacy and safety of conventional and navigated laser photocoagulation as the primary treatment option for retinal arteriolar macroaneurysm (RAM).MethodsEleven (9 male and 2 females, mean age 65.1 ± 12.1 years) and 17 (13 male and 4 females, mean age 66.2 ± 8.9 years) patients were included in conventional laser photocoagulation (CLP) and navigated laser photocoagulation (NLP) groups, respectively. The primary outcome measures were LogMAR best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness at the end of the follow-up. The secondary outcome measure was total laser energy applied during the procedure.ResultsAt the end of the mean follow-up of 11.4 ± 4.0 months, baseline LogMAR BCVA increased significantly from 0.65 ± 0.14 to 0.26 ± 0.12 (p < 0.001) in CLP group and from 0.57 ± 0.33 to 0.29 ± 0.34 (p < 0.001) in NLP group. Central retinal thickness decreased significantly from 514.5 ± 53.2 µm to 295.3 ± 11.3 µm (p < 0.001) and from 494.0 ± 111.2 µm to 285.8 ± 51.4 µm (p < 0.001) in CLP and NLP group, respectively. Total laser energy and number of laser burns applied per procedure in NLP group was statistically significantly lower than in CLP group (0.28 ± 0.13 J vs 0.59 ± 0.06 J, p < 0.001 and 28.5 ± 14.2 burns vs 48.9 ± 5.1 burns, respectively, p < 0.001). No adverse events related to laser treatment was noted in study groups during the follow-up.ConclusionThis study demonstrated superiority of navigated laser photocoagulation compared to conventional laser photocoagulation in primary treatment of RAM which results from similar efficacy and safety of both techniques with lower mean total laser energy and number of laser burns required for navigated laser photocoagulation.

Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of treatment with intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) and ziv-aflibercept (IVZ) in patients with macular edema (ME) post-branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). Methods: Patients with treatment naïve ME post-BRVO were included retrospectively if they received either IVB (0.05 ml/1.25 mg) or IVZ (0.05 ml/1.25 mg) monotherapy with a follow up of 12 months. Results: Thirty-two and 17 eyes received IVB and IVZ, respectively. The mean improvement in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 0.36 ± 0.3 logarithm of minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) in the IVB group and 0.27 ± 0.3 in the IVZ group ( P = 0.35). The mean change in central macular thickness was 178.9 ± 180.9 and 173.5 ± 344.4 μm in IVB and IVZ groups, respectively ( P = 0.94). The mean number of injections was higher in the IVB group (4.0 ± 1.8) compared with 1.82 ± 0.8 in the IVZ group ( P < 0.0001). The IVZ group had significantly fewer number of visits ( P < 0.0001) and longer maximum treatment-free intervals ( P = 0.0081). Conclusion: IVZ appears to be cost-effective with the similar visual outcome and less number of visits in comparison to IVB.

No abstract