Purpose: Lidocaine gel was suggested to be highly effective in providing anesthesia for intravitreal injections but adverse effects include a possibility of making sterilization of the conjunctiva difficult. Hence, we wished to determine the effect of using 0.5% proparacaine drops alone over the use of 3.5% lidocaine hydrochloride gel anesthesia during officebased intravitreal injections.Methodology: This was a case-control study in patients who came routinely to the clinic for antivascular endothelial growth factor injections. Eyes were treated with one of two anesthesia modalities. A total of 216 injections in 120 patients were reviewed. One group (N = 107) underwent anesthesia with 0.5% proparacaine drops, and the control group (N = 109) received 3.5% lidocaine gel. The pain perceived after injection was graded using the numerical rating scale, and score was immediately recorded by the "masked" injecting physician.Results: The mean pain score (±SD) for the proparacaine-only group versus gel group was 1.97 (±1.17) versus 1.76 (±0.92), P value = 0.3174. There was no statistical difference between the 2 groups.Conclusion: 3.5% lidocaine gel is not superior to 0.5% proparacaine drops as patients attained good pain control and excellent rates of overall satisfaction with proparacaine drops alone.

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> The aim of this study was to investigate retinal layer thickness and vessel density differences between patients with reticular pseudodrusen (RPD) and intermediate dry age-related macular degeneration (iAMD). <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Participants included in the study were patients diagnosed by retinal specialists with RPD, iAMD, and both RPD and iAMD at our academic referral center, seen from May 2021 until February 2022. The central 3 mm retinal thickness was measured using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (Heidelberg Spectralis HRA+OCT System; Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany). Individual retinal thickness measurements were obtained from the innermost layer (nerve fiber layer) until the outermost layer (retinal pigment epithelium [RPE]). Each thickness measurement was subdivided into nine Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) sectors. For the vessel density, OCT angiography from the Heidelberg Spectralis System was measured using proprietary third-party software (AngioTool; National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD). Clinical and demographic characteristics were compared across the three groups (iAMD, RPD, iAMD and RPD) and analyzed with necessary adjustments. Linear mixed-effects models with necessary corrections were employed to compare continuous eye-level measurements between our three groups as well as in pairwise fashion using the R statistical programming software (R version 4.2.1). <b><i>Results:</i></b> A total of 25 eyes of 17 patients with RPD, 20 eyes of 15 patients with iAMD, and 14 eyes of 9 patients with both iAMD and RPD were analyzed. Retinal thickness analysis identified that the superior inner (<i>p</i> = 0.028) and superior outer (<i>p</i> = 0.027) maculas of eyes with both iAMD and RPD were significantly thinner than those with iAMD alone. In eyes with RPD, the superior inner and superior outer RPE (<i>p</i> = 0.011 and <i>p</i> = 0.05, respectively), outer plexiform layer (<i>p</i> = 0.003 and <i>p</i> = 0.013, respectively), and inner nuclear layer (<i>p</i> = 0.034 and <i>p</i> = 0, respectively) were noted to be thinner compared to eyes with iAMD alone. In addition, the macular deep capillary plexus vessel density was significantly reduced in eyes with RPD compared to eyes with iAMD (<i>p</i> = 0.017). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Patients with RPD had inner retinal structural as well as vascular changes compared to iAMD patients. Inner retinal vascular attenuation should be investigated further to see if there is a causal association with retinal thinning.

Comparing automated retinal layer segmentation using proprietary software (Heidelberg Spectralis HRA + OCT) and cross-platform Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) segmentation software (Orion). Image segmentations of normal and diseased (iAMD, DME) eyes were performed using both softwares and then compared to the ‘gold standard’ of manual segmentation. A qualitative assessment and quantitative (layer volume) comparison of segmentations were performed. Segmented images from the two softwares were graded by two masked graders and in cases with difference, a senior retina specialist made a final independent decisive grading. Cross-platform software was significantly better than the proprietary software in the segmentation of NFL and INL layers in Normal eyes. It generated significantly better segmentation only for NFL in iAMD and for INL and OPL layers in DME eyes. In normal eyes, all retinal layer volumes calculated by the two softwares were moderate-strongly correlated except OUTLY. In iAMD eyes, GCIPL, INL, ONL, INLY, TRV layer volumes were moderate-strongly correlated between softwares. In eyes with DME, all layer volume values were moderate-strongly correlated between softwares. Cross-platform software can be used reliably in research settings to study the retinal layers as it compares well against manual segmentation and the commonly used proprietary software for both normal and diseased eyes.

No abstract