ABSTRACT.Purpose: To conduct a randomized prospective clinical trial to compare primary vitrectomy without scleral buckling versus conventional scleral buckling surgery in pseudophakic primary retinal detachment (PPRD) in terms of anatomic attachment rate, functional outcome and complications. Methods: Fifty consecutive eyes of 50 patients with PPRD were randomized into two groups, with 25 patients in each of group 1 (scleral buckling group) and group 2 (pars plana vitrectomy without buckling group) in a hospital setting and followed up at 1 week, 2 weeks, 6 weeks and 6 months. Results: A primary reattachment rate of 76% (19 retinas) was obtained in group 1, while a reattachment rate of 84% (21 retinas) was achieved in group 2. The final anatomic reattachment rate was 100% in both groups. The causes of failure in group 1 were proliferative vitreoretinopathy in five eyes and open break/ missed break in one eye. The causes of failure in group 2 were missed break/ open break in three eyes and proliferative vitreoretinopathy in one eye. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 2 weeks was better in group 1, while the final BCVA at end of 6 months was two lines better in group 2. The mean change in refractive error was -1.38 D in group 1 and -0.85 D in group 2. Conclusions: Pars plana vitrectomy without buckling provides an effective treatment for PPRD and results in better longterm visual and anatomic outcomes than conventional scleral buckling.

CMV Retinitis (20%) (20/100) is still the most common manifestation of HIV infection in this series, even in the era of HAART, and is more common than HIV vasculopathy. Immune recovery uveitis is appears to be more common with the introduction of HAART in absence of affordable anti CMV therapy in India. 7% (7/100) of patients present with ophthalmological features as the initial manifestation of HIV. As before, most (70%) (28/40) of the ophthalmic manifestations of HIV infection are present when CD4 count is less than 200 cells/micro liter.

Although primary vitrectomy can achieve anatomical and functional success rates comparable with those achieved by scleral buckling in uncomplicated forms of phakic RRD, the major drawback of the procedure is the high incidence of postoperative cataract formation. Moreover, visual rehabilitation takes place earlier with scleral buckling than with vitrectomy. Scleral buckling should thus be used as the primary surgical modality in the treatment of uncomplicated RRD where the media are sufficiently clear.

Objectives: To evaluate the short-term visual and anatomical outcomes and safety of intravitreal bevacizumab in subfoveal idiopathic choroidal neovascularization. Methods: Thirty-two eyes of 32 patients with idiopathic choroidal neovascularization received intravitreal bevacizumab (1.25 mg/0.05 mL) in this prospective, noncomparative, interventional case series. Injection was repeated if optical coherence tomography showed intraretinal edema, subretinal fluid, and/or pigment epithelial detachment at a 4-week interval. Ophthalmic evaluations included best-corrected visual acuity, optical coherence tomography, and fundus fluorescein angiography. Patients were followed up for at least 12 weeks. Results: The mean follow-up period was 4.2 months. At 12 weeks, the mean best-corrected visual acuity improved from 20/133 (median, 20/200) to 20/50 (median, 20/40) (PϽ.001). The mean central macular thickness was reduced from 314.37 µm to 236.84 µm (PϽ .001). At the final visit, 19 eyes (59%) had an improvement of best-corrected visual acuity of 3 or more lines, 11 eyes (34%) remained stable, and 2 eyes (6%) lost 3 or more lines. No significant ocular or systemic adverse effects were observed. Conclusions: Short-term results suggest that intravitreal bevacizumab is safe and well tolerated in idiopathic choroidal neovascularization. Many patients showed marked improvement in visual acuity and a decrease in central macular thickness. Further evaluation with longer follow-up is needed to confirm long-term efficacy and safety.

SDM laser photocoagulation showed an equally good effect on visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and reduction of diabetic macular edema (DME) as compared to conventional Nd:YAG laser photocoagulation. MfERG recordings, however, suggest that SDM laser results in better preservation of electrophysiological indices.