Clinical variations and therapeutic challenges in the management of symptomatic retinal artery macroaneurysm: a tertiary center experience
Deepak Khadka,Konstantinos T. Tsaousis,Arjun Shrestha,Barsha Suwal,Nirsara Shrestha,Samata Sharma,Rinkal Suwal,Bijay Khatri
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-021-02066-8
IF: 2.029
2021-10-09
International Ophthalmology
Abstract:PurposeTo find out clinical characteristics, therapeutic options, and visual outcome in symptomatic retinal artery macroaneurysm (RAMA) patients.MethodNewly diagnosed cases of symptomatic RAMA from January 2015 to December 2019 were included. Fifteen eyes of 15 patients with mean age 62.46 years ± 14.89 (SD) fulfilled the inclusion criteria.ResultHypertension was present in 66.6% of the patients, and the commonest site was superotemporal (12 eyes, 80%). The most commonly employed treatment was Nd: Yag laser hyaloidotomy in 4 eyes (26.6%). Other treatments were intravitreal bevacizumab in 3 eyes (20%), focal laser with intravitreal bevacizumab in 3 eyes (20%), PPV with focal laser (13.3%) in 2, focal laser only in one (6.6%), PPV with focal and intravitreal bevacizumab in one (6.6%). The mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at baseline was 1.35 ± 0.84 LogMAR, which improved to 0.39 ± 0.53 LogMAR at the last follow-up. Presenting VA 0.77 (±0.40) improved to 0.20 (±0.17) p value (0.180) in intravitreal bevacizumab only group, 1.29 (±0.35) to 0.75 (±0.15) p value 0.66 in Nd: Yag laser group, 2.67 (±0.58) to 0.46 (±0.28) p value 0.019 in PPV group and did not improve in combined anti-VEGF and focal laser group due to dense hard exudates at the fovea in one and persistent cystoid macular edema in another case.ConclusionWith regard to its presentation, which can vary tremendously, there are no approved guidelines for its treatment. The present study reinforces the need for a treatment guideline development. Customization of treatment should be considered depending on the clinical presentation of each case.
ophthalmology