VOLUME 89 - ISSUE 4

PURPOSE: To compare the impact of pro re nata and treat-and-extend regimens on quality of life in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 81 patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration who completed the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25.
RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were observed between pro re nata and treat-and-extend regimens across quality-of-life domains measured by National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25.
CONCLUSIONS: Pro re nata and treat-and-extend regimens demonstrated comparable effects on quality of life in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Further studies are warranted to determine optimal standardized treatment strategies.

Keywords: Macular degeneration/diagnosis; Fluorescein angiography/methods; Tomography, optical coherence/methods; Macular degeneration/drug therapy; Drug administration schedule; Angiogenesis inhibitors/therapeutic use; Intravitreal Injections; Surveys and question

PURPOSE: To assess the performance of a contemporary large language model (ChatGPT-5) against ophthalmology residents on a standardized set of glaucoma multiple-choice questions.
METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional comparative study with 189 text-only glaucoma multiple-choice questions from the Cybersight question bank. ChatGPT-5 was tested under standardized conditions, with each item placed in a new chat and limited to letter-only outputs. Six ophthalmology residents from a Brazilian training program (two Postgraduate Year 1, two Postgraduate Year 2, and two Postgraduate Year 3) answered the same questions under supervision. Accuracy was calculated using the official key. McNemar’s exact test was used to compare items between ChatGPT-5 and residents, and matched odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using the Haldane–Anscombe correction.
RESULTS: ChatGPT-5 received 164 of 189 correct responses (86.8%; 95% CI, 81.2–90.9). Residents’ overall accuracy was 62.9% (713/1,134; 95% CI, 60.0–65.6). The top-performing resident earned 76.7%. ChatGPT-5 outperformed all residents in head-to-head comparisons, with odds ratios ranging from 1.84 (95% CI, 1.10–3.08) to 13.15 (95% CI, 5.93–29.20), all p≤0.023. ChatGPT-5 correctly answered 17/189 items (9.0%), but fewer than half of residents were correct (“large language model-only wins”), whereas residents were more successful on items that ChatGPT-5 overlooked.
CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT-5 outperformed ophthalmology residents on text-based glaucoma multiple-choice questions, indicating its potential as a subspecialty education and assessment tool. Generalizability is limited by the single question bank, text-only items, a small resident cohort, and the evaluation of one large language model version at a single time point. Before incorporating these findings into clinical decision-making, larger, multimodal, and longitudinal studies are required.

Keywords: Glaucoma; Artificial intelligence; Large language models; Education, medical; Medical staff, hospital

PURPOSE: To compare clinical outcomes associated with different intraoperative mitomycin C exposure times during photorefractive keratectomy for myopia and astigmatism correction.
METHODS: This prospective, comparative, contralateral-eye study included 41 patients (82 eyes), comprising 28 eyes with ablation <60µm and 13 eyes with ablation >60µm, who underwent photorefractive keratectomy with varying mitomycin C application times based on ablation depth. In eyes with ablation <60µm, mitomycin C was applied for 15 s in one eye and 30 s in the fellow eye. In eyes with ablation >60µm, mitomycin C was applied for 30 s in one eye and 60 s in the fellow eye. Outcomes included visual acuity, postoperative pain (visual analog scale), subjective tearing, corneal haze, and refractive results at 3 months.
RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were observed between mitomycin C application times within either group for postoperative pain, tearing, visual acuity, refractive outcomes (spherical, cylindrical, and spherical equivalent), or haze prevalence (p>0.05 for all comparisons). Visual acuity improved in all groups, and no eyes lost ≥2 lines of corrected distance visual acuity.
CONCLUSIONS: Shorter mitomycin C exposure times (15 or 30 s) appear to be as effective and safe as longer durations (30 or 60 s) for haze prevention after photorefractive keratectomy without compromising refractive outcomes or increasing postoperative discomfort at 3-month follow-up.

Keywords: Mitomicin/therapeutic use; Photorefractive keratectomy; Lasers, excimer; Intraoperative period; Miopia/surgery; Astigmatismo/surgery; Corneal opacity; Postoperative pain; Comparative study

Amblyopia is a leading, yet largely preventable, cause of visual impairment and is now recognized as a binocular neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by interocular suppression and widespread functional deficits. This narrative review synthesizes contemporary evidence on the epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of amblyopia, with a focus on clinically applicable guidance. Conventional treatments—including optimal refractive correction, occlusion therapy, and pharmacologic penalization with atropine—remain highly effective when appropriately prescribed, titrated, and monitored for adherence, even among selected older children. Emerging binocular approaches, such as dichoptic digital therapies, perceptual learning, and short-term monocular deprivation, aim to restore binocular balance. Although these strategies may yield improvements in stereopsis and contrast sensitivity, their effects are generally modest and task-specific. Overall, current evidence supports the integration of traditional and novel approaches into etiology-specific, measurement-driven care pathways. Future research should prioritize functional outcomes, long-term durability, and real-world effectiveness.

Keywords: Amblyopia/diagnosis; Amblyopia/physiopathology; Amblyopia/epidemiology; Binocular vision; Vision disorders; Review

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety profiles of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy with dexamethasone vs anti-vascular endothelial growth factor alone in patients with persistent diabetic macular edema. It was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline. Our data were prospectively registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023482385). We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases for studies that compared treatment with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor and dexamethasone to anti-vascular endothelial growth factor alone in patients with persistent diabetic macular edema. The primary outcomes were changes in best corrected visual acuity, changes in central macular thickness, and the incidence of serious adverse events. Four studies were included, totaling 315 eyes. Of these 154 (48.88%) received anti-vascular endothelial growth factor alone, while 161 (51.12%) underwent combined therapy. Overall, combined therapy was associated with better central macular thickness (mean difference −68.21; p<0.001), although this did not translate into a significant difference in best-corrected visual acuity at 1 month follow-up (mean difference 1.29; p=0.55). There were significantly more intraocular pressure-related events (odds ratio 10.84; p=0.02) and cataract-related events (odds ratio 41.24; p<0.001) in the combined group than the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor alone group. Our results suggest that combined therapy improves macular morphology in persistent diabetic macular edema without increasing the risk of serious adverse events. However, its effects on final visual acuity outcomes were no better than those resulting from anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy alone.

Keywords: Diabetic macular edema; Macular edema; Central macular thickness Dexamethasone; Ozurdex; Anti-VEGF; Bevacizumab; Ranibizumab