The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) injections for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) in eyes with and without previous vitrectomy. The medical records of 28 eyes (11 vitrectomized and 17 nonvitrectomized) of 28 patients (mean age, 59.0 ± 9.6 years; male to female ratio 1 : 1) who were diagnosed with DME and had received IVR treatment were reviewed retrospectively. The indications of vitrectomy in 11 vitrectomized eyes were intravitreal hemorrhage (n = 8) and epiretinal membrane (n = 3). The best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and total macular volume (TMV) were measured at baseline and at months 6, 12, 18, and 24 of the follow-up. The number of IVR injections, the duration between diagnosis of DME and IVR injection, and the hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level at baseline were also recorded. Baseline demographics, HbA1c, BCVA, CMT, and TMV values were similar between two groups (p>0.05). The duration between diagnosis of DME and IVR injections was similar in both groups (16 ± 5 months vs. 13 ± 4 months, respectively; p=0.11). IVR injection was performed 6.3 times in vitrectomized eyes and 6.1 times in nonvitrectomized eyes during the 24-month period (p>0.05). The mean BCVA improved significantly during the 24-month period in both groups. The improvements in BCVA, in CMT, and in TMV were more significant at month 6 (p=0.036) group, at month 12 (p=0.013), at month 12 (p=0.021), and month 24 (p=0.021) in nonvitrectomized eyes, respectively, while there was no difference in improvements of BCVA, CMT, and TMV in vitrectomized group at each visit. Treatment effected by time in terms of BCVA, CMT, and TMV values in all groups (p=0.0004, p<0.0001, p<0.0001, respectively), not by time-group interaction and group (all p values >0.05). In conclusion, IVR treatment for DME is equally effective in both groups. However, the response to treatment is seen earlier in nonvitrectomized eyes compared to vitrectomized eyes.

Deep dry needling is an evidence-based treatment technique that is accepted and used by physical therapists for treatment of musculoskeletal pain. We present a case of iatrogenic pneumothorax due to deep dry needling over the posterior thorax. A 36-year old presented with right chest pain 2 hours after dry needling for pain in his back muscles. Chest radiograph suggested small right pneumothorax and the finding was confirmed by computed tomography. Not only should practitioners and their patients be aware of potential complications of dry needling, but also physicians who might see patients with complications.

Background: To compare the effectiveness of intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) injections for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) in eyes with and without previous vitrectomy.Methods: The medical records of 30 eyes (13 vitrectomized, 17 nonvitrectomized) of 28 patients (mean age, 59.0±9.6 years; male to female ratio 1:1) who were diagnosed with DME and had received IVR treatment were reviewed retrospectively. The indications of vitrectomy in 13 vitrectomized eyes were intravitreal hemorrhage (n=8), vitreomacular traction (n=1), and epiretinal membrane (n=4). The best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and total macular volume (TMV) were measured at baseline and at months 6, 12, 18, and 24 of the follow-up.The number of IVR injections, the duration between diagnosis of DME and IVR injection, and hemoglobin A1c ( HbA1c ) level at baseline were also recorded. Retreatment criteria included persistence of submacular fluid, intraretinal cysts, or CMT of more than 300 μm.Results: Baseline demographics, HbA1c, BCVA, CMT, and TMV values were similar between the vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized groups (p>0.05). The duration between diagnosis of DME and IVR injections was longer in the nonvitrectomized group than in the vitrectomized group (16±5 months vs. 13±4 months, respectively; p=0.045). IVR injection was performed 6.3 times in vitrectomized eyes and 6.1 times in nonvitrectomized eyes during the 24-month period (p>0.05). The mean BCVA improved significantly during the 24-month period in both groups (for vitrectomized group from 0.51±0.26 logMAR to 0.40±0.22 logMAR; for nonvitrectomized group from 0.72±0.28 logMAR to 0.50±0.22 logMAR). The improvement in BCVA was significant at month 6 in nonvitrectomized eyes, while there was no significant improvement in vitrectomized eyes before month 18. Compared to the baseline values, the decrease in both CMT and TMV was significant in months 6, 12, 18, and 24 in the nonvitrectomized group (p<0.05). In the vitrectomized group both CMT and TMV improved significantly only in months 18 and 24 (p<0.05).Conclusion: IVR treatment for DME is equally effective in both vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes. However, the response to treatment is seen later in vitrectomized eyes compared to nonvitrectomized eyes.3

Background: To compare the effectiveness of intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) injections for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME) in eyes with and without previous vitrectomy. Methods:The medical records of 30 eyes (13 vitrectomized, 17 nonvitrectomized) of 28 patients (mean age, 59.0 9.6 years; male to female ratio 1:1) who were diagnosed with DME and had received IVR treatment were reviewed retrospectively. The best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and total macular volume (TMV) were measured at baseline and at months 6, 12, 18, and 24 of the follow-up. The number of IVR injections, the duration between diagnosis of DME and IVR injection, and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level at baseline were also recorded. Results: Baseline demographics, HbA1c, BCVA, CMT, and TMV values were similar between the vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized groups (p>0.05). The duration between diagnosis of DME and IVR injections was longer in the nonvitrectomized group than in the vitrectomized group (16 5 years vs. 13 4 years, respectively; p=0.045). IVR injection was performed 6.3 times in vitrectomized eyes and 6.1 times in nonvitrectomized eyes during the 24-month period (p>0.05). BCVA improved significantly during the 24-month period in both groups. The improvement in BCVA was significant at month 6 in nonvitrectomized eyes, while there was no significant improvement in vitrectomized eyes before month 18. Compared to the baseline values, the decrease in both CMT and TMV was significant in months 6, 12, 18, and 24 in the nonvitrectomized group (p<0.05). In the vitrectomized group both CMT and TMV improved significantly only in months 18 and 24 (p<0.05). Conclusion: IVR treatment for DME is equally effective in both vitrectomized and nonvitrectomized eyes. However, the response to treatment is seen later in vitrectomized eyes compared to nonvitrectomized eyes.

Although late complications of percutaneous closure of atrial septal defect (ASD), including cardiac erosion and thrombosis, are rare, they are the most lethal. Data are still lacking regarding the usefulness of new imagining modalities, such as three‐dimensional echocardiography (3DE), for the detection of these complications. Here, we report the case of a 57‐year‐old woman in whom cardiac erosion was very well visualized by 3D transesophageal echocardiography (3D TEE) after percutaneous ASD closure.