Comparison of sub-tenon triamcinolone acetonide and intravitreal bevacizumab for the treatment of macular edema due to branch retinal vein occlusion

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authorscopusid50461463700
dc.authorscopusid23029212900
dc.authorscopusid6506746644
dc.authorscopusid44261149300
dc.authorscopusid9738634000
dc.authorscopusid36699267900
dc.authorscopusid16238470800
dc.contributor.authorIlhan, Nilüfer
dc.contributor.authorAyhan Tuzcu, Esra
dc.contributor.authorDa?lio?lu, Mutlu Cihan
dc.contributor.authorCoşkun, Mesut
dc.contributor.authorIlhan, Özgür
dc.contributor.authorAyintap, Emre
dc.contributor.authorKeskin, U?urcan
dc.date.accessioned2024-09-19T15:43:44Z
dc.date.available2024-09-19T15:43:44Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.departmentHatay Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractPurpose: To evaluate the effect of subtenon triamcinolone acetonide (STA) and intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) injections in the treatment of macular edema due to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, 41 eyes of 41 patients with macular edema due to BRVO were included. The records of 21 patients of triamcinolone and 20 patients of bevacizumab group were analyzed retrospectively. Before injection and 1., 3. and 6 months after the treatment, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) (logMAR), intraocular pressure (IOP) and central foveal thickness (CFT) detected by optical coherence tomography were recorded. Results: In the triamcinolone group baseline values including BCVA (logMAR) and CFT were 0.94±0.42 logMAR and 552±70 ?m. In the bevacizumab group, they were 0.98±0.50 logMAR and 541±94 ?m. At 6th month BCVA and CFT were 0.57±0.35 logMAR and 342±34 ?m in the triamcinolone group whereas these values were 0.41±0.23 logMAR and 289±15?m in the bevacizumab group. During the follow up, the mean BCVA was not significantly different but the mean CFT was significantly different at 3rd and 6th month between groups. Five patients (23.8%) from triamcinolone group, IOP exceeded 24 mm Hg postoperatively. No complications observed in the bevacizumab group. Conclusion: The visual outcome of STA and IVB injections in patients with macular edema due to BRVO was similar. Increased IOP after injection limits the usage of STA. However the effect of IVB on the macular edema seems better than STA.en_US
dc.identifier.endpage258en_US
dc.identifier.issn1300-1256
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84892657224en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ4en_US
dc.identifier.startpage254en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12483/14533
dc.identifier.volume21en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.language.isotren_US
dc.relation.ispartofRetina-Vitreusen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectBevacizumaben_US
dc.subjectMacular edemaen_US
dc.subjectRetinal vein occlusionen_US
dc.subjectTriamcinolone acetonideen_US
dc.titleComparison of sub-tenon triamcinolone acetonide and intravitreal bevacizumab for the treatment of macular edema due to branch retinal vein occlusionen_US
dc.title.alternativeRetina ven dal tikanikli?ina ba?li maküler ödem tedavisinde subtenon triamsinolon asetonid ve intravitreal bevacizumabin karşilaştirilmasien_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu