Comparison of the efficacy and safety between subthreshold micropulse laser, standard-fluence and low-fluence photodynamic therapy for chronic central serous chorioretinopathy.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of subthreshold micropulse laser treatment (SML), standard-fluence photodynamic therapy (PDT) and low-fluence PDT in patients with chronic central serous chorioretinopathy (cCSC). METHODS: This retrospective study included 52 eyes of 46 patients with chronic CSC who were treated with 577nm SML (n=23), standard-fluence PDT (verteporfin 6mg/m2 and light energy 50J/cm2) (n=13), or low-fluence PDT (verteporfin 6mg/m2 and light energy 25J/cm2) (n=16). The mean changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) parameters, including central retinal thickness (CRT), subretinal fluid (SRF) height, and ellipsoid zone (EZ) disruption, over the follow-up period were evaluated. RESULTS: The mean follow-up period was 8.42±3.34 months. In the SML group, the SRF resolution time was longer than the other groups. At 1 month, the SML group's mean CRT was higher than the other groups. The BCVA improvement was statistically significant in all groups (P<0.05), but in the SML group, it was slower than the other groups. Three eyes in the low-fluence and one eye in the standard-fluence PDT group received a second PDT treatment. The mean number of SML treatments was 2.48±1.08. If the EZ was intact, the rate of complete resolution of SRF was higher than if the EZ was disrupted or lost. CONCLUSION: SML, standard-fluence PDT, and low-fluence PDT can all improve visual acuity in cCSC. Standard-fluence and low-fluence PDT induced a more rapid reabsorption of the fluid, improvement of BCVA, and equal safety compared with SML. More treatment sessions of SML were required than with the other treatment modalities.

Open versus laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: perioperative parameters and graft functions.

OBJECTIVE: With the developments in laparoscopic surgery, open donor nephrectomy has been widely replaced by laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Presented herein is the comparison of laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LLDN) and open live donor nephrectomy (OLDN) results performed at our institute. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent OLDN between July 2006 and August 2008 or LLDN between August 2008 and July 2010 were included in this retrospective age- and gender-matched case-controlled study. OLDN was performed with a 45° semi-flank position using a self-retaining retractor. LLDN operations were performed used a 90° flank position by the transperitoneal route under 12-15 mm Hg carbon dioxide (CO(2)) pressure. A Pfannenstiel incision was used in all LLDN for graft extraction. The renal artery and vein were controlled with Satinsky clamps in OLDN, whereas renal arteries were controlled with nonabsorbable polymer locking clips and renal veins with 2.5/45 mm EndoGIA vascular staplers in LLDN. RESULTS: Thirty patients underwent OLDN and 31 LLDN. The mean ages among the OLDN and LLDN patients were 44.9 ± 21.9 and 46.3 ± 18.4, respectively. There was no significant difference in mean age and gender distribution of patients between OLDN and LLDN groups by the design of the study. The OLDN group consisted of 4 (13%) right and 26 (87%) left nephrectomies; the LLDN group consisted of 3 (9%) right and 28 (91%) left nephrectomies. Mean operative time was 110 ± 18 and 101 ± 28 minutes for OLDN and LLDN, respectively (P < .05; Mann-Whitney U test). Estimated blood loss was 35 ± 15 mL among the OLDN group and 15 ± 24 mL for the LLDN group. Mean hospitalization time in the OLDN and LLDN groups were 3.8 ± 0.5 and 2.6 ± 0.6 days, respectively. There were no conversions to open surgery in the LLDN group. Mean warm ischemia time in the OLDN and LLDN groups were 140 ± 58 seconds and 203 ± 21 seconds, respectively (P < .05; Mann-Whitney U test). There was no difference in recipient serum creatinine levels at 1 week after surgery. CONCLUSION: LLDN was superior to OLDN in terms of operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and postoperative pain. Longer warm ischemia time in the LLDN group did not translate into worse graft function in the recipients.