Comparison of the therapeutic effects of different injection of triamcinolone acetonide in the treatment of retinal vein occlusion-induced macular edema
10.3980/j.issn.1672-5123.2026.3.25
- VernacularTitle:曲安奈德不同注射方式治疗视网膜静脉阻塞性黄斑水肿的疗效对比
- Author:
Tian XIA
1
;
Zuoxia LI
1
;
Zelin TIAN
1
Author Information
1. Department of Ophthalmology, Chongqing Three Gorges Medical College Affiliated People's Hospital, Chongqing 404100, China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
triamcinolone acetonide;
posterior scleral injection;
peripupillary injection;
intravitreal injection;
retinal vein occlusion-macular edema
- From:
International Eye Science
2026;26(3):506-510
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of posterior scleral, peripupillary, and intravitreal injections of triamcinolone acetonide(TA)in treating retinal vein occlusion-macular edema(RVO-ME).METHODS: From June 2021 to September 2024, patients with RVO-ME admitted to our hospital were assigned to three groups: group A(posterior scleral injection), group B(peripupillary injection), and group C(intravitreal injection). At 3 mo after treatment, the efficacy, best corrected visual acuity(BCVA LogMAR), central macular thickness(CMT), central retinal artery blood flow parameters, and incidence of complications were compared among the three groups of patients.RESULTS: A total of 93 cases(93 eyes)of RVO-ME were included, with 31 cases(31 eyes)in each group. The mean age in the group A was 50.37±5.71 years old, with 15 males and 16 females, the group B was 48.92±5.36 years old, with 14 males and 17 females, and the group C was 49.66±5.54 years old, with 18 males and 13 females. The overall efficacy rate in the group A(94%)was higher than that in the groups B and C(68% and 74%), and the complication rate(6%)was lower than in the groups B and C(29% and 32%; P<0.05). At 1 and 3 mo after treatment, the BCVA of group A was 0.46±0.06, 0.36±0.04, the end diastolic velocity(EDV)was 11.45±1.79, 13.97±2.28 cm/s, and the peak systolic velocity(PSV)was 2.16±0.31, 2.83±0.42 cm/s; the BCVA of group B was 0.55±0.07, 0.46±0.05, EDV was 9.57±1.38, 12.03±2.14 cm/s, and PSV was 1.93±0.26, 2.41±0.39 cm/s. The BCVA of group C was 0.57±0.09, 0.48±0.06, EDV was 9.39±1.25, 11.91±2.06 cm/s, PSV was 1.87±0.24, 2.35±0.36 cm/s. The BCVA in the group A was better than that of the groups B and C, and EDV and PSV in the group A were greater than those of the groups B and C(all P<0.05); at 1 and 3 mo after treatment, the CMT of patients in the group A was 249.62±29.33 and 141.13±21.59 μm, and resistance index(RI)was 0.71±0.08 and 0.70±0.08, patients in the group B had CMT of 307.13±34.86 and 227.99±28.43 μm, and RI of 0.77±0.09 and 0.76±0.09, while patients in the group C had CMT of 311.42±40.66 and 232.56±31.44 μm, and RI of 0.79±0.11 and 0.78±0.10, with CMT and RI significantly lower in the group A than those in the groups B and C(all P<0.05).CONCLUSION: All three methods improved visual acuity, reduced macular edema, and optimized retinal blood flow parameters. However, posterior scleral injection demonstrated the most significant improvement across all efficacy metrics. In contrast, although peripupillary injection and intravitreal injection demonstrated therapeutic effects, their improvements were relatively limited, and both had a higher incidence of complications. Therefore, posterior scleral injection may represent a superior treatment for RVO-ME.
