Purpose Various combination treatment regimens have been tried to improve the short-term efficacy of intravitreal monotherapy for the treatment of macular oedema (MO) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO). Our study introduces the RandOL protocol (Ranibizumab and Ozurdex with Laser photocoagulation) of initial anti-VEGF therapy, controlling recurrent non-ischaemic MO with an intravitreal steroid and applying laser therapy to non-perfused retina. We describe our 12-month follow-up experience on timing for adjunctive therapy and real-world effectiveness and safety data. Methods A retrospective analysis was carried out on 66 consecutive treatment-naive RVO patients with MO who received our RandOL treatment regimen. Baseline visual acuity (VA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) were compared with 12-month result. Results At 12 months, 77% had significant VA improvement, 52% had ≥3-line improvement, and 15% were worse. Significant improvements in CRT were observed in 97% (baseline median CRT=531 μm (IQR 435-622) reduced to 245 μm (IQR 221-351, P<0.001) at 12 months); 76% achieved a dry fovea at 1 year. Mean number of total injections required was 5.5 (range 2-11) and 6% required ≥9 injections in 1 year. Although 70% received additional Ozurdex, 82% received ≥1 sessions of laser therapy. The BRVO subgroup achieved better VA and CRT improvement at 1 year, but small numbers limit definitive statistical conclusions. Conclusions Our real-world results using a combination treatment protocol for RVO-related MO achieved similar desirable anatomical and visual outcomes as with a single-agent therapy with less intravitreal re-treatment rates at first year. Randomised controlled studies are needed to evaluate the role of laser and the ideal timing of combination therapy.

Optical coherence tomography is designed to evaluate in vivo qualitative and quantitative changes of the anterior segment, optic nerve and the retina. Initial applications of this technology were confined mainly to ophthalmic diseases. However recently, numerous studies have evaluated its use in systemic conditions and in therapeutics where, optic nerve and retinal architecture can be assessed to monitor progression of systemic conditions and its response to treatment. This is a narrative review aimed at evaluating the debate surrounding the role of spectral domain optical coherence tomography, in systemic conditions where optic nerve affection can be measured and be used in the diagnosis, monitoring and assessment of treatment effect as a non-invasive, quick, novel technique. Keywords: nutrition; optical coherence tomography; retinal nerve fibre layer; systemic disease; therapeutics.

Purpose: Determine the repeatability of and optimum stimulus parameters for testing polarization pattern perception in a real-world clinical population, and assess the ability of polarization perception to distinguish normal from abnormal eyes. Methods: Polarization perception was evaluated in staff and patients attending ophthalmology clinics at Warwick Hospital, UK. A series of visual stimuli were presented in pseudorandom order using a liquid-crystal-display-based polarization pattern generator. Stimuli included geometric patterns, gratings, checkerboards, and optotypes. Participants had one or both eyes diagnosed as normal or abnormal following ophthalmic examination, optical coherence tomography, and measures of visual acuity. Measurement scores were assigned to the eye(s) of each participant depending on the total number of stimuli perceived or identified. Results: Stimuli covered the range of spatial scales resolvable within polarization perception by normal and abnormal eyes. Different stimuli had different saliencies. For each stimulus type, polarization perception in the abnormal group was significantly reduced compared with normal eyes (P < 0.001). Relative stimulus salience was broadly similar for normal-eye and abnormal-eye viewing groups, being greatest for radially symmetric patterns and least for optotypes. Checkerboard pattern salience had an inverse logarithmic relationship with check fundamental spatial frequency. A devised metric covering the dynamic range of polarization perception was repeatable, and the score derived from the metric was reduced in the abnormal group compared with the normal group (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Clinically useful metrics of polarization perception distinguish between normal and abnormal eyes. Translational relevance: Perception of spatial patterns formed of non-uniform polarization fields has potential as a quantitative clinical diagnostic measurement. Keywords: light polarization; macular pigment; vision; vision testing; visual dysfunction.

Recent reports indicate that the subjective ability of humans to discriminate between polarization E-vector orientations approaches that of many invertebrates. Here, we show that polarization-modulated patterned stimuli generate an objectively recordable electrophysiological response in humans with normal vision. We investigated visual evoked potential (VEP) and electroretinographic (ERG) responses to checkerboard patterns defined solely by their polarization E-vector orientation alternating between ± 45°. Correcting for multiple comparisons, paired-samples t-tests were conducted to assess the significance of post-stimulus deflections from baseline measures of noise. Using standard check pattern sizes for clinical electrophysiology, and a pattern-reversal protocol, participants showed a VEP response to polarization-modulated patterns (PolVEP) with a prominent and consistent positive component near 150 ms (p < 0.01), followed by more variable negative components near 200 ms and 300 ms. The effect was unrecordable with visible wavelengths >550 nm. Further, pseudo-depolarization negated the responses, while control studies provided confirmatory evidence that the PolVEP response was not the product of luminance artefacts. Polarization-modulated patterns did not elicit a recordable ERG response. The possible origins of the PolVEP signals, and the absence of recordable ERG signals, are discussed. We conclude that evoked cortical responses to polarization-modulated patterns provide an objective measure of foveal function, suitable for both humans and non-human primates with equivalent macular anatomy.

Many readers may know that scores of animal species sense the polarization of light for purposes including navigation, predation, and communication1. It is commonly thought that humans lack any sensitivity to polarization of light (e.g., Morehouse2). We hope to convince you otherwise by describing three examples where humans can detect polarization of light with the naked eye, by showing you how to see it yourself, and by describing its uses.

Three-dimensional (3D) printing uses a process of adding material in a layer-by-layer fashion to form the end product. This technology is advancing rapidly and is being increasingly utilized in the medical field as it becomes more accessible and cost-effective. It has an increasingly important role in ophthalmology and eyecare as its current and potential applications are extensive and slowly evolving. Three-dimensional printing represents an important method of manufacturing customized products such as orbital implants, ocular prostheses, ophthalmic models, surgical instruments, spectacles and other gadgets. Surgical planning, simulation, training and teaching have all benefitted from this technology. Advances in bioprinting seem to be the future direction of 3D printing with possibilities of printing out viable ocular tissues such as corneas and retinas in the future. It is expected that more ophthalmologists and other clinicians will use this technology in the near future.

Purpose: To study the treatment patterns, visual outcomes and safety profile of intravitreal dexamethasone implant (IDI) used for the treatment of macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion. Methods: Up to 2 years of routinely collected anonymized data within electronic medical record systems were remotely extracted from 16 centers. The outcome measures include visual outcome, number of injections, and safety measures, including the rate of intraocular pressure (IOP) rise, frequency of IOP-lowering medication usage, and cataract surgery rates. Results: The study included 688 eyes (44.4%) with central retinal vein occlusion and 862 eyes (55.6%) with branch retinal vein occlusion; 1,250 eyes (80.6%) were treatment naive and 28% (275/989) had high IOP or were on IOP-lowering medications before IDI use. It was found that 31% (476) of eyes received two injections, and 11.7% (182) and 3.7% (58) of eyes received three and four injections, respectively. The mean baseline Snellen visual acuity improved from 20/125 to 20/40 after the first injection. The probability of cataract surgery was 15% at 24 months. The proportion of eyes with ≥10 mmHg change from baseline was higher in phakic (14.2%) compared with pseudophakic eyes (5.4%, P = 0.004). Three eyes required IOP filtering surgery (0.2%). Conclusion: The visual results of IDI in eyes with macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion in the real world are comparable to those of clinical trial setting. Increased IOP in eyes with preexisting ocular hypertension or glaucoma can be controlled with additional medical treatment. Intraocular pressure rise with IDI may be more frequent in phakic than in pseudophakic eyes.