This same tendency was described in a previous

study.6 Although these findings again are not statistically significant, this trend seems to suggest that surgery for secondary floaters is at least as safe as surgery for primary floaters, if not safer. VA usually is unaffected despite reports of severe visual obscuration. Therefore, surgical removal of vitreous floaters is not expected to improve VA. In one study of I-BET151 in vitro 6 pseudophakic eyes, VA remained the same in 50% and improved in the other 50% of cases.5 In a larger series, a slight but nonsignificant mean improvement was found, with unchanged VA in 43 of 73 of cases, improvement in 19, and worsening in 11.6 We did find a significant overall increase in VA, but this was the result of the relatively high proportion of combined procedures in our series, where the removal of cataract is mainly responsible for the VA gain. Earlier studies have addressed functional outcome through prospective assessment of patient satisfaction. Using standardized questionnaires, all concluded that patient satisfaction after this procedure is high, ranging from 88% to 93%.2 and 6 The apparent mismatch between VA outcome and satisfaction outcome reflects the lack of objective parameters in floater surgery. In conclusion, vitrectomy for vitreous floaters shows a similar complication profile as vitrectomy for other elective indications. The idea that vitrectomy for floaters is simple

Chlormezanone and less dangerous than vitrectomy for other indications therefore should be banned. Despite these risks, a small selection of SAR405838 order patients with persistent and debilitating symptoms can consent to treatment by vitrectomy. The literature on complications of vitrectomy for floaters is limited. Within these reports, variation exists in complication rates. This variation could be the result of differences in operation technique. Patients should be informed properly about the risks of this procedure, preferably based on personalized complication data. The authors indicate

no financial support or financial conflict of interest. Involved in Design and conduct of study (H.S.T., M.M., S.Y.L.O., H.M.B.); Drafting and referencing article (H.S.T., M.M.); Revising article (H.S.T., M.M., S.Y.L.O., H.M.B.). The Institutional Review Board at the University of Amsterdam declared that this type of retrospective study waived the need for Institutional Review Board approval. “
“Krupin T, Liebmann JM, Greenfield DS, Ritch R, and Gardiner S, on behalf of the Low-Pressure Glaucoma Study Group. A Randomized Trial of Brimonidine Versus Timolol in Preserving Visual Function: Results from the Low-pressure Glaucoma Treatment Study. Am J Ophthalmol 2011; 151(4):671–681. In the April 2011 issue, two errors are reported in the above article: 1 In Table 3, the headers for columns 1 – 4 and 5 – 8 incorrectly appear as “Timolol” and “Brimonidine” respectively.