Purpose. To evaluate visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity (CS), and central retinal thickness (CRT) after intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide (IVT) injection for macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). Methods. In this prospective study, a total of 21 eyes of 21 patients were included. VA, CS, and CRT were assessed at baseline and at 1, 3, and 6 months after a single IVT injection. Results. Mean age was 64.57 ± 8.34 years. The mean baseline VA (LogMAR) increased from 1.11 ± 0.63 to 0.55 ± 0.39 ( ), 0.60 ± 0.40 ( ), and 0.78 ± 0.39 ( ) at 1, 3, and 6 months, respectively. The mean baseline CS (log CS) at 1 meter improved from 0.66 ± 0.49 to 1.11 ± 0.32 ( ), 0.99 ± 0.38 ( ), and 0.72 ± 0.37 ( ) at 1, 3, and 6 months, respectively. The mean baseline CS (log CS) at 3 meters improved from 0.34 ± 0.41 to 0.74 ± 0.41 ( ), 0.64 ± 0.44 ( ), and 0.46 ± 0.49 ( ) at 1, 3, and 6 months, respectively. The mean baseline CRT decreased from 511 ± 146？ m to 242 ± 119？ m, 277 ± 131？ m, and 402 ± 166？ m at 1, 3, and 6 months after IVT ( for each). Conclusion. Single IVT injection improved VA and CS and reduced CRT at 1 and 3 months of treatment. VA and CS returned to baseline levels at 6 months. 1. Introduction Macular edema (ME) is the most frequent complication of branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) [1]. Since the Branch Vein Occlusion Study Group reported efficacy of grid laser photocoagulation, it has been accepted as the standard treatment for ME secondary to BRVO [2]. Recently, an increasing number of reports have revealed the efficacy of new treatment options for ME secondary to BRVO, such as intravitreal injection of triamcinolone acetonide (IVT), bevacizumab, ranibizumab, or aflibercept [3–7]. As various therapies are currently available, more detailed clinical assessment of the visual functions of these patients has become more important. Most of the previous studies evaluating the outcomes of intravitreal agents in eyes with ME secondary to BRVO assessed visual function with VA measurement [3–6]. VA is one of the components of functional vision and measures standard high contrast visual acuity which is not a true reflection of visual performance [8]. VA is associated with tasks requiring good resolution and adaptation to changing light conditions, whereas contrast sensitivity (CS) is associated with daily activities requiring distance judgements, night driving, and mobility [9]. Thus, CS function may give an additional information on visual performance for evaluating functional results of such treatments. Therefore, the purpose of
References
[1]
R. L. McIntosh, Q. Mohamed, S. M. Saw, and T. Y. Wong, “Interventions for branch retinal vein occlusion: an evidence-based systematic review,” Ophthalmology, vol. 114, no. 5, pp. 835–854, 2007.
[2]
The Branch Vein Occlusion Study Group, “Argon laser photocoagulation for macular edema in branch vein occlusion,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 98, no. 3, pp. 271–282, 1984.
[3]
O. ？eki？, S. Chang, J. J. Tseng et al., “Intravitreal triamcinolone treatment for macular edema associated with central retinal vein occlusion and hemiretinal vein occlusion,” Retina, vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 846–850, 2005.
[4]
M. Cakir, M. Dogan, Z. Bayraktar et al., “Efficacy of intravitreal triamcinolone for the treatment of macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion in eyes with or without grid laser photocoagulation,” Retina, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 465–472, 2008.
[5]
A. ？zkiri？, C. Evereklioglu, K. Erkili？, and ？. Ilhan, “The efficacy of intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide on macular edema in branch retinal vein occlusion,” European Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 96–101, 2005.
[6]
P. A. Campochiaro, J. S. Heier, L. Feiner et al., “Ranibizumab for macular edema following branch retinal vein occlusion: six-month primary end point results of a phase III study,” Ophthalmology, vol. 117, no. 6, pp. 1102–1112, 2010.
[7]
P. A. Campochiaro, “Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment for retinal vein occlusions,” Ophthalmologica, vol. 227, supplement 1, pp. 30–35, 2012.
[8]
G. B. Arden, “The importance of measuring contrast sensitivity in cases of visual disturbance,” British Journal of Ophthalmology, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 198–209, 1978.
[9]
G. S. Rubin, K. Bandeen-Roche, G. H. Huang et al., “The association of multiple visual impairments with self-reported visual disability: SEE project,” Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 64–72, 2001.
[10]
N. Floman and U. Zor, “Mechanism of steroid action in ocular inflammation: inhibition of prostaglandin production,” Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 69–73, 1977.
[11]
I. U. Scott, M. S. Ip, P. C. VanVeldhuisen et al., “A randomized trial comparing the efficacy and safety of intravitreal triamcinolone with standard care to treat vision loss associated with macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion: the standard care versus corticosteroid for retinal vein occlusion (SCORE) study report 6,” Archives of Ophthalmology, vol. 127, no. 9, pp. 1115–1128, 2009.
[12]
S. A. Haymes, K. F. Roberts, A. F. Cruess et al., “The letter contrast sensitivity test: clinical evaluation of a new design,” Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 2739–2745, 2006.
[13]
R. C. Preti, L. M. Ramirez, S. L. Pimentel et al., “Single intravitreal bevacizumab injection effects on contrast sensitivity in macular edema from branch retinal vein occlusion,” Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia, vol. 75, pp. 29–32, 2012.
