Rationale: An intravitreal dexamethasone (IV-DEX) implant is safe and effective for the treatment of macular edemas; however, the efficacy of IV-DEX implants in silicone oil (SO)-filled eyes remains controversial. There is no previous study comparing an IV-DEX implant in the same eye with and without intravitreal SO. Patient concerns: A 72-year-old man with proliferative diabetic retinopathy, macular edema, and rhegmatogenous retinal detachment, treated with pars plana vitrectomy with SO tamponade had refractory macular edema. Diagnosis: Refractory macular edema. Intervention: Subtenon triamcinolone injection, intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injection, and IV-DEX implantation were performed; this was followed by intravitreal SO removal combined with IV-DEX implantation. Outcomes: The macular edema did not decrease significantly with posterior subtenon triamcinolone injection, intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injection, and IV-DEX implantation; however, the edema was relieved after SO removal and a new IV-DEX implantation. Lessons: IV-DEX implant may be less efficacious in the treatment of macular edema in an SO-filled eye than that in a normal vitreous cavity.

No abstract

Purpose: We report a case of conjunctival synthetic fiber granuloma, which was misdiagnosed as chalazion. Case summary: An 8-year-old female patient, without any previous medical illness or ocular trauma history, visited our hospital with a prolonged mass-like lesion in the left lower palpebral conjunctiva. In her detailed medical history, she said that she often played with her doll's hair. The conjunctival mass first occurred 1 week before her visit to the private clinic. At that time, eye drop treatment was initiated under the diagnosis of chalazion. The child showed no improvement; thus, incision and curettage were performed. The mass in the conjunctiva continued to persist, so she was transferred to the hospital for a biopsy. Slit-lamp examination revealed a patterned agglomeration of fiber strands inside the mass. Complete excisional biopsy was performed under general anesthesia. Histopathological examination revealed a fibrous foreign body in the birefringence, with granulomatous inflammation surrounding it. The patient was diagnosed with synthetic fiber granuloma. Conclusions: Conjunctival synthetic fiber granulomas are easily mistaken as chalazion. If specific fibrous strands are entangled inside the mass on slit-lamp examination, diagnosis and treatment through therapeutic excisional biopsy are required under clinical suspicion.

No abstract

No abstract