BACKGROUND: To report a case of cataract surgery in unintentional Ozurdex (Allergan, Inc., Irvine, California, USA) injection into the lens.
METHODS: A 82-years old man reporting decreased visual acuity in his right eye came to our Ophthalmology service. Due to the clinical history, and on the basis of ophthalmoscopic and imaging examinations diabetic macular edema was diagnosed. Thus, intravitreal dexamethasone implant was scheduled and therefore performed. The following day Ozurdex appeared to be located into the lens. After careful evaluation and strict follow up examinations, due to the risks associated with the presence of the implant into the lens, phacoemulsification with Ozurdex removal and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation was scheduled and performed.
CONCLUSIONS: In this case report we reported the surgical management of accidental into-the lens dexamethasone implant carefully taking into account the dexamethasone pharmacokinetic.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of Ozurdex® (DEX) implant in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) in real-world clinical practice, and to determine the correlation between known OCT biomarkers and the effect of treatment.
This retrospective study included 42 eyes of 33 patients (16 women, 17 men) treated with DEX at the Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry of Palacký University and University Hospital Olomouc for DME indication between 2020 and 2023. Follow-up examinations were conducted at 1, 3, and 6 months after the first DEX application. The main assessed parameters were: best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), intraocular pressure (IOP), central retinal thickness (CRT), OCT biomarkers. The results were subsequently statistically evaluated.
At the first follow-up after DEX application, there was an average decrease in CRT of 186 ±146µm and a gain of 3 ±7 letters. Positive morphological and functional responses were observed in 39 eyes (92.9%) and 23 eyes (54.8%) respectively. The disorganization of retinal inner layers (DRIL) biomarker was initially present in 41 eyes (97.6%), with reduction or disappearance observed in 13 eyes (31%) post-application. Eyes with ellipsoid zone disruption (EZ disruption) had an average initial BCVA of 49.6 letters, compared to 57.8 letters in the group without this biomarker. The mean gain in BCVA was +8.7 letters in treatment-naive eyes and +2.1 letters in previously treated eyes. Chronic DME was less frequent in treatment-naive (n = 1, 14.3%) compared to previously treated eyes (n = 28, 84.8%). All these results were statistically significant (p < 0.05). An increase in IOP post-DEX application occurred in 9 patients (21.4%).
Our results confirm DEX as a safe and effective treatment option for DME. Treatment-naive patients achieved better functional outcomes. We confirmed ellipsoid zone disruption (EZ disruption) as a negative biomarker. Additionally, we demonstrated the capacity of DEX to reduce disorganization of the retinal inner layers (DRIL).

Macular edema (ME) remains a primary cause of visual deterioration in uveitis. Visual acuity (VA) can often be maintained using corticosteroid depot systems. This study evaluated the efficacy of a fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) intravitreal implant (ILUVIEN®) in treating non-infectious uveitis using real-world data. This retrospective analysis included 135 eyes subdivided into responders and non-responders. Central retinal thickness (CRT), VA, and intraocular pressure (IOP) were followed over time. A significant decrease in CRT and an increase in VA were observed in all eyes throughout the follow-up period (p < 0.01). An IOP increase (p = 0.028) necessitated treatment in 43% of eyes by Month 6. Non-responders were older (p = 0.004) and had been treated with more dexamethasone (DEX) implants (p = 0.04); 89.3% had a defect in the external limiting membrane (ELM) and inner/outer segment (IS/OS) zone (p < 0.001). Immunomodulatory therapy had no impact on treatment response. Pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) patients had a mean CRT reduction of 47.55 µm and a reduced effect by Month 24 (p = 0.046) versus non-PPV patients. We conclude that the FAc implant achieves long-term control of CRT and improves VA. Increases in IOP were manageable. Eyes with a previous PPV showed milder results. Data showed a correlation between older age, a damaged ELM and IS/OS zone, frequent DEX inserts, and poorer outcome measures.

This comprehensive review examines the efficacy, safety, and implications of intravitreal OZURDEX and intravitreal bevacizumab in treating diabetic macular edema (DME). DME is a common complication of diabetes mellitus and a leading cause of vision loss. OZURDEX, through sustained release of dexamethasone, targets inflammation and vascular permeability, while bevacizumab inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), reducing angiogenesis. However, differences in safety profiles exist, with OZURDEX associated with an increased risk of intraocular pressure elevation and cataract formation and bevacizumab potentially carrying systemic risks. The choice between these treatments should be individualized, considering patient preferences, ocular and systemic comorbidities, and cost-effectiveness. Collaboration among healthcare providers is essential for the comprehensive management of DME. Future research should focus on long-term comparative studies, predictors of treatment response, and exploration of novel therapeutic targets to optimize treatment outcomes for patients with DME.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the short-term effects (hours-days) of intravitreal dexamethasone implant (IDI) in eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME) refractory to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections.
METHODS: This was a prospective, single-arm, interventional clinical series. Eyes with DME and 3-9 injections of ranibizumab without a good response were included. Patients underwent a single IDI. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) measurement, complete ophthalmic evaluation, and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) were performed at baseline, 2 h, 3 h, 24 h, 7 days, and 1 month. The main outcomes were change in central retinal thickness (CRT) on SD-OCT and BCVA.
RESULTS: Fifteen eyes of 15 patients were included. Mean CRT decreased after treatment from 515.87 µm ± 220.00 µm at baseline to 489.60 µm ± 176.53 µm after 2 h (p = 0.126), and 450.13 µm ± 163.43 at 24 h (p = 0.006). Change in BCVA was from 0.85 ± 0.44 logMAR baseline to 0.58 ± 0.37 log MAR at 1 month (p = 0.003).
CONCLUSIONS: Eyes treated with IDI showed significant decrease in CRT detectable 1 day after injection. In some patients, the effect could be observed 3 h post-implantation.
BACKGROUND: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05736081 . Registered 20 February 2023, Retrospectively registered.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to explore microvascular changes evaluated with optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) in patients undergoing epiretinal membrane (ERM) pars-plana vitrectomy (PPV) combined with intravitreal Ozurdex implantation, compared with standard PPV. (2) Methods: Prospective interventional analysis on 25 eyes undergoing PPV + Ozurdex (Group A) and 25 eyes undergoing PPV alone. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and OCTA parameters, such as vessel density (VD) of the superficial and deep capillary plexi (SCP and DCP) in the whole 6.4 mm × 6.4 mm and fovea area, were evaluated preoperatively and 3 months after surgery. (3) Results: Postoperative BCVA significantly improved in both groups. No cases of post-operative cystoid macular edema (CME) were reported in Group A vs. two eyes in Group B. In Group A we found a statistically significant increase of SCP\'s VD in either the whole image (from 42.1 ± 4.1 to 45.6 ± 4.3%, p = 0.01) and the fovea image (from 38.5 ± 7.5 to 41.7 ± 4.2%, p = 0.03). In Group B, we reported no significant variations in the SCP\'s VDs. In the DCP, VD significantly increased only in the whole image in Group A. Stage 4 ERMs showed the greatest improvement in VD, especially in Group A. (4) Conclusions: Intraoperative Ozurdex prompted a significant BCVA recovery and limited the occurrence of postoperative CME compared to the standard procedure. Moreover, Ozurdex implant is associated with a better restoration of microvascular structure in SCP and DCP.

UNASSIGNED: Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a significant cause of vision impairment, posing challenges in its management due to variable responses and patient diversity. While anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents have revolutionized DME treatment, some patients are not suitable candidates for this therapy. Intravitreal corticosteroid therapy, such as the dexamethasone implant (DEX), has emerged as an alternative. This study aimed to comprehensively investigate the role of intravitreal DEX in treatment-naive DME patients with systemic contraindications to anti-VEGF therapy, administered one month before cataract surgery.
UNASSIGNED: A single-center retrospective study included 20 eyes with controlled diabetes, visually significant cataracts, untreated DME, and systemic contraindications for anti-VEGF therapy. Patients underwent DEX treatment followed by cataract surgery after one month. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and intraocular pressure (IOP) were assessed at multiple time points.
UNASSIGNED: BCVA significantly improved on days 30, 90, and 180 post-DEX (P<0.00001). CMT showed a significant decrease at day 30 (P<0.00001), which was sustained through days 90 and 180 (P<0.00001). Recurrent DME was observed in 25% of eyes on day 90. IOP increased significantly at days 30 (P<0.00001) and 90 (P=0.0006), returning to baseline by day 180. However, only two eyes needed topical anti-glaucoma treatment. No other ocular or systemic adverse events were noted.
UNASSIGNED: Intravitreal DEX administered one month before cataract surgery offers a promising treatment strategy for treatment-naive DME patients with systemic contraindications to anti-VEGF therapy. The study\'s findings provide insights into improving visual acuity and reducing macular thickness, along with manageable IOP changes. This personalized approach is a valuable addition to DME management, especially for complex medical cases, warranting further research and consideration for clinical practice.

Purpose: To assess the impact of switching to, or adding, an intravitreal dexamethasone implant (Dex; Ozurdex®) in anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy on disease stability and treatment intervals in eyes with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) and persistent disease activity and high treatment demand. Methods: This retrospective noncomparative multicenter longitudinal case series included pseudophakic eyes with nAMD and persistent retinal fluid despite regular anti-VEGF therapy (ranibizumab or aflibercept) that received at least 1 intravitreal Dex implant. Visual acuity, central retinal thickness (CRT), and intraocular pressure were recorded before, and after, the addition of Dex to anti-VEGF therapy. Results: Sixteen eyes of 16 patients met the inclusion criteria of persistent fluid despite anti-VEGF therapy, under treatment intervals of ≤7 weeks in 14 instances. Patients were 80.9 ± 7.4 years old and had received 25.5 ± 17.4 anti-VEGF injections before Dex over a period of 36.4 ± 21.9 months before switching. The treatment interval increased from 5.5 ± 3.2 weeks between the last anti-VEGF and first Dex injection to 11.7 ± 7.3 weeks thereafter (P = 0.022). CRT remained stable (385.3 ± 152.1, 383.9 ± 129.7, and 458.3 ± 155.2 μm before switching as well as 12 and 24 months after switching; P = 0.78 and P = 0.36, respectively). An insignificant mean short-term early increase in visual acuity was not sustained over time. Conclusions: The addition of Dex resulted in a relevant and sustained increase in treatment intervals, whereas CRT and visual acuity remained stable in these difficult-to-treat eyes. It may be discussed whether inflammation or other steroid-responsive factors play a significant role in cases of nAMD with nonsatisfactory responses to anti-VEGF.

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is a common sight-threatening complication of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and the leading cause of severe visual impairment among the working-age population. Several therapeutic options are available for the management of DME, including intravitreal corticosteroids. They have been traditionally used as second-line treatment, due to the risk of intraocular pressure increase and cataract-related adverse events. However, attention has recently been focused on the primary or early use of intravitreal corticosteroids, due to growing evidence of the crucial role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of DME. Furthermore, intravitreal steroid implants offer the additional advantage of a longer duration of action compared to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents (anti-VEGF). This review aims to summarize the available evidence on the efficacy and safety profile of dexamethasone (DEX) intravitreal implant, with a specific focus on clinical scenarios in which it might be considered or even preferred as first-line treatment option by adequate selection of patients, considering both advantages and possible adverse events. Patients with contraindications to anti-VEGF, DME with high inflammatory OCT biomarkers, pseudophakic patients and phakic patients\' candidates to cataract surgery as well as vitrectomized eyes may all benefit from first-line DEX implant. Additionally, DME not responders to anti-VEGF should be considered for a switch to DEX implant and a combination therapy of DEX implant and anti-VEGF could be a valid option in severe and persistent DME.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the common risk factors, complications, and management options for anterior migration of Ozurdex implant.
METHODS: A comprehensive review of the literature was performed.
RESULTS: Amongst the most common risk factors predisposing to implant anterior migration we found a history of pseudophakia or aphakia or previous vitrectomy. The most common complication is that of corneal edema.
CONCLUSIONS: A variety of management options to treat migration of the dexamethasone implant are utilized by different specialists around the world. These depend on the doctor\'s preference, presence of corneal damage and history of previous migrations after repositioning the implant. The most common approaches are operative or non-operative implant repositioning and surgical implant removal.