Dataset Information

A Novel Technique for Repositioning of a Migrated ILUVIEN(®) (Fluocinolone Acetonide) Implant into the Anterior Chamber.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Fluocinolone acetonide (FAc) intravitreal implant (ILUVIEN(®); Alimera Sciences Limited, Aldershot, UK) has been approved in the UK for the treatment of chronic diabetic macula edema, insufficiently responsive to available therapies. It is inserted into the vitreous cavity through a 25-gauge needle. Migration of the implant to the anterior chamber (AC) can occur through gaps in the posterior capsule especially in vitrectomized eyes. Early removal of AC-dislocated FAc implant is essential to prevent corneal edema and damage from raised intraocular pressure.

Aim

To demonstrate a simple and novel technique, with a previous capsular tear, for removal of AC-migrated FAc implant and reinsertion into the vitreous cavity without compromising implant integrity.

Method

A side port incision was created with a keratome and an anterior chamber maintainer introduced and secured. Subsequently, a corneal incision was created at 12 o'clock through which a 23-gauge backflush needle (flute needle) was advanced into the anterior chamber and passive suction used to secure the implant. The flute needle was then placed through the defect in the posterior capsule and the exit port blocked, causing loss of suction and allowing the implant to fall into the posterior segment. The sulcus intraocular lens (IOL) was centralized simply by manipulating it approximately 180 degrees to provide adequate anterior capsule support.

Results

The FAc implant was successfully removed from AC in two patients and reinserted into the vitreous cavity without damage or complications either for the eye or the implant. IOL in both patients were repositioned to close the gap in posterior capsule. After 2 months, the implant remains in the vitreous cavity. This paper presents data from one of these cases.

Conclusion

Using 23-gauge flute needle to retrieve dislocated FAc implant is a safe and easy technique.

Funding

Alimera Sciences Ltd.

SUBMITTER: El-Ghrably IA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4675734 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDiabetic macular oedema (DMO) may lead to visual loss and blindness. Several pharmacological treatments are available on the National Health Service (NHS) to United Kingdom patients affected by this condition, including intravitreal vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGFs) and two types of intravitreal steroid implants, releasing dexamethasone or fluocinolone acetonide (FAc). This study aimed to assess the value for money (cost-effectiveness) of the FAc 0.2??g/day implant (ILUVIEN®) in patients with chronic DMO considered insufficiently responsive to other therapies.MethodsWe developed a Markov model with a 15-year time horizon to estimate the impact of changes in best-corrected visual acuity in DMO patients on costs and quality-adjusted life years. The model considered both eyes, designated as the "study eye", defined at model entry as phakic with an ongoing cataract formation or pseudophakic, and the "fellow eye". The model compared the FAc 0.2??g/day implant with a 700??g dexamethasone implant (pseudophakic patients only) or with usual care, defined as a mixture of laser photocoagulation and anti-VEGFs (phakic and pseudophakic patients). Costs were estimated from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services; full NHS prices were used for drugs.ResultsIn patients who were pseudophakic at baseline, at 36?months, the FAc implant provided an additional gain of 4.01 and 3.64 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters compared with usual care and the dexamethasone implant, respectively. Over the 15-year time horizon, this translated into 0.185 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at an extra cost of £3066 compared with usual care, and 0.126 additional QALYs at an extra cost of £1777 compared with dexamethasone. Thus, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were £16,609 and £14,070 per QALY gained vs. usual care and dexamethasone, respectively. In patients who were phakic at baseline, the FAc 0.2??g/day implant provided an additional gain of 2.96 ETDRS letters at 36?months compared with usual care, which, over 15?years, corresponded to 0.11 additional QALYs at an extra cost of £3170, resulting in an ICER of £28,751 per QALY gained.ConclusionThe FAc 0.2??g/day implant provided good value for money compared with other established treatments, especially in pseudophakic patients.