We read with interest the article by Sanders et al.1 that retrospectively compared visual outcomes of patients with clinically significant cystoid macular edema (CME) after cataract surgery to a corresponding case–control group. The cost of treatment and patient-reported outcomes represented additional primary end points. We commend the group on using corrected distance visual acuity, symptoms, and optical coherence tomography findings as a diagnostic criterion that represents a real-world definition of clinically significant pseudophakic CME. Their reported incidence of clinically significant CME of 1.46% is consistent with the literature. As the authors have clearly described, refractory CME can lead to significant perceived visual-related quality of life restrictions and direct financial implications for patients. The paper collaborates a previous report with regard to the risk factors that are associated with refractory CME, diabetes, past vein occlusions, epiretinal membrane, and uveitis.2 Preoperative risk stratification will allow for targeted prophylactic intraoperative antiinflammatory treatment of high-risk eyes. However, the authors' final statement that dual therapy, inclusive of topical nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) treatment, is standard postoperative care contradicts both the authors' own perioperative protocol and the references used within the paper itself. Within the discussion, the referenced article by Kessel et al. did not in fact indicate a definitive role for NSAIDs in treating clinically significant CME.3 The PREMED study was cited as showing that combined therapy would reduce the incidence of clinically significant CME. The PREMED study did not use visual acuity in its definition of the condition; instead, it used a new definition of “a central subfield thickness increase of 10%” as its definition of CME.4 Of note, the PREMED study reported no difference in the visual acuity at 6 or 12 weeks after the procedure between treatment groups, suggesting the absence of any particular treatment benefit of NSAIDs in regard to vision. The PREMED study also excluded eyes with macular pathology. The lack of high-level evidence for the use of routine prophylactic NSAIDs is supported elsewhere by a previous report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.5 The use of these references to support the statement that “standard postoperative care is now dual therapy” is therefore unsubstantiated in the literature and in this study.
Read full abstract