Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Ophthalmology and BioMed Central.

Open Access Highly Accessed Research article

Intravitreal vs. subtenon triamcinolone acetonide for the treatment of diabetic cystoid macular edema

Mauro Cellini*, Alberto Pazzaglia, Eugenio Zamparini, Pietro Leonetti and Emilio C Campos

Author Affiliations

Department of Surgery and Transplant "A. Valsalva", Ophthalmology Service (Chief: Prof. E.C. Campos), University of Bologna, Italy

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Ophthalmology 2008, 8:5  doi:10.1186/1471-2415-8-5

Published: 17 March 2008

Abstract

Background

To assess the efficacy of the intravitreal (IVT) injection of Triamcinolone Acetonide (TA) as compared to posterior subtenon (SBT) capsule injection for the treatment of cystoid diabetic macular edema.

Methods

Fourteen patients with type II diabetes mellitus and on insulin treatment, presenting diffuse cystoid macular edema were recruited. Before TA injection all focal lakes were treated by laser photocoagulation. In the same patients one eye was assigned to 4 mg IVT injection of TA and the fellow eye was then treated with 40 mg SBT injection of TA. Before and one, three and six months after treatment we measured visual acuity with ETDRS chart as well as thickness of the macula with optical coherence tomography (OCT) and intraocular pressure (IOP).

Results

The eyes treated with an IVT injection displayed significant improvement in visual acuity, both after one (0.491 ± 0.070; p < 0.001) and three months (0.500 ± 0.089; p < 0.001) of treatment. Significant improvement was displayed also in eyes treated with an SBT injection, again after one (0.455 ± 0.069; p < 0.001) and three months (0.427 ± 0.065; p < 0.001). The difference between an IVT injection (0.809 ± 0.083) and SBT injection (0.460 ± 0.072) becomes significant six months after the treatment (p < 0.001).

Macular thickness of the eyes treated with IVT injection was significantly reduced both after one (222.7 ± 13.4 μm; p < 0.001) and after three months (228.1 ± 10.6 μm; p < 0.001) of treatment. The eyes treated with SBT injection displayed significant improvement after one (220.1 ± 15.1 μm; p < 0.001) and after three months (231.3 ± 10.9 μm; p < 0.001). The difference between the eyes treated with IVT injection (385.2 ± 11.3 μm) and those treated with SBT injection (235.4 ± 8.7 μm) becomes significant six months after the treatment (p < 0.001).

Intraocular pressure of the eyes treated with IVT injection significantly increased after one month (17.7 ± 1.1 mm/Hg; p < 0.020), three (18.2 ± 1.2 mm/Hg; p < 0.003) and six month (18.1 ± 1.3 mm/Hg; p < 0.007) when compared to baseline value (16.1 ± 1.402 mm/Hg). In the SBT injection eyes we didn't display a significant increase of intraocular pressure after one (16.4 ± 1.2 mm/Hg; p < 0.450), three (16.3 ± 1.1 mm/Hg; p < 0.630) and six months (16.2 ± 1.1 mm/Hg; p < 0.720) when compared to baseline value (16.2 ± 1.3 mm/Hg).

Conclusion

The parabulbar subtenon approach can be considered a valid alternative to the intravitreal injection.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN67086909