Comparability of input parameters in the German Retina.net ROP registry and the EU-ROP registry - An exemplary comparison between 2011 and 2021.

PURPOSE: The German Retina.net ROP registry and its Europe-wide successor, the EU-ROP registry, collect data from patients treated for ROP. This analysis compares input parameters of these two registries to establish a procedure for joint analyses of different registry data using exemplary datasets from the two registries. METHODS: Exemplary datasets from the two databases over a 1-year period each (German Retina.net ROP Registry, 2011, 22 infants; EU-ROP Registry, 2021, 44 infants) were compared. The parameters documented in the two databases were aligned and analysed regarding demographic parameters, treatment modalities, complications within first 24 h and retreatments. RESULTS: The current analysis showed that data can be aligned for joint analyses with some adjustments within the data structure. The registry with more detailed data collection (EU-ROP) needs to be reduced regarding granularity in order to align the different registries, as the registry with lower granularity determines the level of analyses that can be performed in a comparative approach. In the exemplary datasets, we observed that the overall most common ROP severity in both registries was zone II, 3+ (2011: 70.5%; 2021: 65%), with decreasing numbers of clock hours showing preretinal neovascularisations (2011: 10-12 clock hours in 29% of cases, 2021: 4-6 clock hours in 38%). The most prevalent treatment method was laser coagulation in 2011 (75%) and anti-VEGF therapy in 2021 (86.1%). Within the anti-VEGF group, all patients were treated with bevacizumab in 2011 and with ranibizumab in 2021. Retreatment rates were comparable in 2011 and 2021. CONCLUSION: Data from two different ROP registries can be aligned and jointly analysed. The analysis reveals a paradigm shift in treatment modalities, from predominantly laser to anti-VEGF, and within the anti-VEGF group from bevacizumab to ranibizumab in Germany. In addition, there was a trend towards earlier treatment in 2021.

[Treatment of postoperative endophthalmitis : Operate or only inject?] / Therapie der postoperativen Endophthalmitis : Operieren oder nur injizieren?

BACKGROUND: Postoperative endophthalmitis is among the most feared complications encountered after intraocular surgery. A prompt diagnosis and initiation of treatment are crucial for the visual prognosis, which also depends on the causative microorganism. Despite advances in prevention and the availability of more epidemiological data, most of the evidence for treatment dates back to a single study, the early vitrectomy study (EVS) carried out in the early 1990s. The EVS showed that vitrectomy with intravitreal antibiotics was superior to intravitreal antibiotics alone, only when visual acuity was light perception or below. The addition of systemic antibiotics did not have any benefits. Over the last 30 years, however, surgical techniques have continued to evolve and the medicinal options have also been expanded. Moreover, the EVS examined only endophthalmitis after cataract surgery and strictly speaking the results cannot be transferred to endophthalmitis from other causes. OBJECTIVE: This review discusses the current evidence for the different treatment modalities of the most important types of postoperative endophthalmitis. CONCLUSION: The EVS provided important guidelines for the initial management of endophthalmitis and these guidelines remain relevant to this day; however, in view of the refinement of surgical techniques, novel treatment options, especially the nowadays continuously growing number of intravitreal injections and even some new antibiotics, it would be desirable if new controlled trials addressing the treatment of endophthalmitis would be performed.