ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To describe two cases of concentric macular rings (CMR) sign in patients with combined hamartoma of retina and retinal pigment epithelium (CHRRPE). METHODS: History and clinical examination, spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT), and optic coherence tomography angiography (OCTA). RESULTS: The first patient was a 26-year-old woman with clinical diagnosis of Neurofibromatosis type 2. The Best-Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) was 20/25 in the right eye (OD) and 20/20 in the left eye (OS). She presented a subtle grayish lesion in the macular region of OD. On macular SD-OCT, there was a thickened and disorganized retina, suggestive of CHRRPE. In addition, at the parafoveal region, there was a dentate pattern in the outer plexiform layer (OPL) and Henle fiber layer (HFL) on cross-sectional SD-OCT. OCTA showed no foveal avascular zone (FAZ) in OD and Optos ultra-wide-field revealed CMR sign in this eye. The second patient was a 14-year-old boy, with diabetes mellitus type 1. His BCVA was 20/25 in OD and 20/20 in OS. He had a subtle whitish lesion in the macular region of OD, with SD-OCT findings suggestive of CHRRPE. Similar to the first case, there was a dentate pattern in the OPL and HFL, on SD-OCT. In OD, blue reflectance images exhibited the CMR sign, and OCTA showed absent FAZ. CONCLUSION: CHRRPE may be related to changes in the OPL and HFL interface and may present the CMR sign.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Endolaser probes have been designed and sold for single-use only. However, in Brazil, they are not included in the list of single-use medical products that are prohibited from being reprocessed and could potentially be reused if safety requirements are accomplished. Therefore, this study aimed to determine and compare the quality, safety and costs of reprocessed versus original single-use endolaser probes of a specific brand and model. METHODS: The study, conducted at a university hospital in Sao Paulo, Brazil, was divided in two phases. The first one tested the feasibility, sterility and physical integrity of ten reprocessed laser probes. In the second phase, all vitrectomy procedures using endolaser probes (reprocessed and original ones) from August 2017 to October 2019 were evaluated. The operated cases were followed for any signs of infection and number of defective probes for each group were counted. The cost of acquiring a new probe and for all reprocessing stages were evaluated and quantified in US dollars($). RESULTS: Microbiologic, residual ethilen oxide and microscopic evaluation of integrity of reprocessed laser probes were all within acceptable range. The second phase of this study included 590 endolaser probes, of which 375 were original and 215 were reprocessed. Functionality rates differed significantly between groups. Among the original probes, 373 (99.47%) were functioning and 2 (0.53%) were non-functioning. Among the reprocessed ones, 201 (93.5%) were functioning and 14 (6.5%) were non-functioning (p < .001). The average cost of one reprocessing was $3.00, and the average cost of an original probe was $150.00. Considering the loss rates, potential savings were $147.60 for each once-reprocessed probe. The frequency of infectious endophthalmitis was null in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that a single cycle endolaser probe reprocessing was safe and efficient, not associated with increase in endophthalmitis rate and proved to be significantly cost-effective, even considering a greater malfunction rate when compared to the original devices.
