Open Access

Purpose: There are little or no published data comparing the outcomes of ILUVIEN® (0.19 mg fluocinolone acetonide [FAc]) and OZURDEX® (0.7 mg dexamethasone [DEX]) implants in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME), and this case sought to compare their outcomes. Methods: This case was extracted from a monocentric audit involving a pool of 25 patients (33 eyes) with DME and treated with a single FAc implant between October 2013 and December 2016. This case, a 61-year-old male with a pseudophakic lens, is from a patient that had received 4 intravitreal injections of a DEX implant prior to FAc implant and then was monitored for 3 years until re-treatment with a second FAc implant. Parameters measured included visual acuity (VA), central retinal thickness (CRT), and intraocular pressure (IOP). Results: After the DEX implants, CRT transiently improved. In March 2014, the decision was taken to administer an FAc implant, and this led to a reduction in CRT below 300 µm (from a baseline of 748 µm), and this was sustained for 30 months. VA remained above 65 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters to month 36, after which time a second FAc implant (in April 2017) was administered due to recurrence of edema and CRT decreased to below 300 µm and VA improved to 70 letters. Side effects included elevated IOP, which was effectively managed with IOP-lowering drops. Conclusion: A single injection of FAc implant led to sustained improvements in CRT and VA that lasted for between 30 and 36 months, which is in contrast to the DEX implant where re-treatment was generally required within 6–7 months. After 36 months, re-treatment with the FAc implant again led to improved VA and CRT, and responses that were similar to those achieved with the first FAc implant.

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of the virtual reality training simulator Eyesi to prepare surgeons for performing pars plana vitrectomies and its potential to predict the surgeons’ performance. Methods: In a preparation phase, four participating vitreoretinal surgeons performed repeated simulator training with predefined tasks. If a surgeon was assigned to perform a vitrectomy for the management of complex retinal detachment after a surgical break of at least 60 hours it was randomly decided whether a warmup training on the simulator was required (n = 9) or not (n = 12). Performance at the simulator was measured using the built-in scoring metrics. The surgical performance was determined by two blinded observers who analyzed the video-recorded interventions. One of them repeated the analysis to check for intra-observer consistency. The surgical performance of the interventions with and without simulator training was compared. In addition, for the surgeries with simulator training, the simulator performance was compared to the performance in the operating room. Results: Comparing each surgeon’s performance with and without warmup trainingshowed a significant effect of warmup training onto the final outcome in the operating room. For the surgeries that were preceeded by the warmup procedure, the performance at the simulator was compared with the operating room performance. We found that there is a significant relation. The governing factor of low scores in the simulator were iatrogenic retinal holes, bleedings and lens damage. Surgeons who caused minor damage in the simulation also performed well in the operating room. Conclusions: Despite the large variation of conditions, the effect of a warmup training as well as a relation between the performance at the simulator and in the operating room was found with statistical significance. Simulator training is able to serve as a warmup to increase the average performance.