Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of central visual impairment in the elderly. The exact pathophysiological mechanisms for AMD remain uncertain. Several studies suggest that choroidal abnormalities and alterations are critical in AMD progression. The transition from manual to automated segmentation and binarization techniques has resulted in accurate and precise measurements of different choroidal parameters. These qualitative and quantitative parameters, known as choroidal imaging biomarkers, have advanced from basic vertical subfoveal choroidal thickness to more intricate 3-dimensional choroidal reconstruction methods in the last decade. Therefore, a comprehensive evaluation of choroidal metrics may investigate valuable insights into AMD, potentially guiding the future development of customized therapeutic strategies and personalized patient care in AMD management. We describe the role of different choroidal biomarkers in evaluating patients with AMD and their contribution to management.

Cystoid macular edema (CME) is an infrequent, though potentially visually impairing, complication after uneventful cataract surgery. Rupture of the blood-aqueous barrier, with leakage of serum proteins into the aqueous humour, is the main pathogenic factor. However, only a few studies investigated the potential correlation between anterior chamber (AC) inflammation and the risk of cystoid macular changes occurring after surgery. This review aims to identify evidence of a correlation between AC inflammation and the risk of pseudophakic CME. One hundred eighty-seven prospective trials investigating AC inflammation after uncomplicated cataract surgery were identified. Methods of analysis of AC inflammation and the frequency of macular changes were recorded. In the majority (51%) of the studies, inflammation was assessed by clinical grading, followed by laser flare and cell photometry (LFCP) (42%) and aqueous humour sample (4%). Few studies (4%) adopted a combined LFCP and aqueous sample or clinical grading analysis. Sixteen (9%) studies investigated AC inflammation and macular changes by OCT (7%) or fluorescein angiography (2%). Correlation between the amount of postoperative AC inflammation and frequency of CME was documented in 7 studies, not confirmed in 2 studies, and not examined in the other 7. LFCP, more than the other methods of analysis, correlated with the frequency of CME postoperatively. Investigation of the relationship between AC inflammation and the risk of CME changes requires the adoption of quantitative methods of analysis of the inflammatory response after surgery. For this purpose, due to the low level of inflammation in the AC after uncomplicated cataract surgery, LFCP, more than subjective clinical grading, seems a more sensitive and reproducible method of measurement. Inflammation assessment after cataract surgery has a potential role in predicting the risk of CME development and may help to titrate the duration and intensity of treatment in relation to the surgical inflammatory response.

Objective To report our experience using the T-shaped macular buckle (MB) with or without pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) as primary surgery or with a previous failed surgical approach in patients affected by high myopia and macular hole (MH) with or without macular detachment and with or without macular schisis. The primary goal was to evaluate complete closure of the MH and reattachment of the retina. Design Retrospective case series of 21 consecutive patients who underwent T-shaped MB implant alone or combined with PPV at the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, between January 2013 and November 2014. The mean axial length was 31.22 mm. The mean follow-up period was 7 months. Results Retinal reattachment was achieved in 100% of cases while MH closure was achieved in 90.5%. No major perioperative complications were observed. Best corrected visual acuity improved in 71.4% of patients. Conclusions MB combined with PPV should be considered as the preferred surgical approach both in primary and recurrent retinal detachment secondary to MH in high myopic eyes.

Purpose: To report our experience with bilateral placement of dexamethasone 0.7 mg (DEX) sustained-release intravitreal implant in the management of noninfectious posterior uveitis or macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion. Methods: A retrospective chart review of patients with bilateral noninfectious posterior uveitis and macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion who were treated with DEX intravitreal implant was performed. Ocular side effects such as intraocular pressure (IOP), cataract, and tolerability of bilateral injections was reviewed. Results: Twenty-two eyes of eleven patients treated with a total of 32 DEX implants were included. Ten of eleven patients received bilateral implants due to active noninfectious uveitis while the other demonstrated macular edema in both eyes following separate central retinal vein occlusions. Among the patients with bilateral uveitis, the mean interval between DEX implant in the initial eye and the subsequent DEX in the fellow eye was 15.6 days (range 2–71 days). Seven of the ten patients received the second implant in the fellow eye within 8 days of the initial implantation. None of the patients had bilateral implantations on the same day. Seven eyes required reimplantation for recurrence of inflammation (mean interval between first and repeat implantation was 6.00±2.39 months). Following single or, in the case of the aforementioned seven eyes, repeat DEX implantation, all 20 uveitic eyes demonstrated clinical and/or angiographic evidence of decreased inflammation in the form of reduction in vitreous cells on slit lamp ophthalmoscopy, macular edema on ophthalmoscopy, or optical coherence tomography and/or disc and vascular leakage on fluorescein angiography. The mean follow-up for all eyes after initial implantation was 23.57 months (range 1–48 months). IOP was significantly higher (P=0.028) at 6 months (16.62 mmHg ±5.97) but not (P=0.82) at most recent follow-up (14.9±3.37 mmHg) when compared with baseline (14.68±3.02 mmHg). Four eyes (18.2%) required initiation of IOP-lowering medications. During the follow-up period, no eyes underwent filtration or cataract extraction. No serious ocular adverse effects were noted during the follow-up period. Conclusion: In patients with bilateral noninfectious posterior uveitis and macular edema secondary to vein occlusion, bilateral injection of DEX intravitreal implant was well tolerated and had an acceptable safety profile.