Risk factors such as UVB exposure and smoking can be addressed. Although no means of preventing cataracts has been scientifically proven, wearing sunglasses that counteract ultraviolet light may slow their development. While adequate intake of antioxidants (such as vitamins A, C, and E) has been thought to protect against the risk of cataracts, clinical trials have shown no benefit from supplements; though evidence is mixed, but weakly positive, for a potential protective effect of the nutrients lutein and zeaxanthin. Statin use is somewhat associated with a lower risk of nuclear sclerotic cataracts.

The postoperative recovery period (after removing the cataract) is usually short. The patient is usually ambulatory on the day of surgery, but is advised to move cautiously and avoid straining or heavy lifting for about a month. The eye is usually patched on the day of surgery and use of an eye shield at night is often suggested for several days after surgery.

In all types of surgery, the cataractous lens is removed and replaced with an artificial lens, known as an intraocular lens, which stays in the eye permanently. Intraocular lenses are usually monofocal, correcting for either distance or near vision. Multifocal lenses may be implanted to improve near and distance vision simultaneously, but these lenses may increase the chance of unsatisfactory vision.

While surgeries do exist to correct for severe cases of floaters, there are currently no medications (including eye drops) that can correct for this vitreous deterioration. Floaters are often caused by the normal aging process and will usually disappear as the brain learns to ignore them. Looking up/down and left/right will cause the floaters to leave the direct field of vision as the vitreous humour swirls around due to the sudden movement. If floaters significantly increase in numbers and/or severely affect vision, then one of the below surgeries may be necessary.

Currently, insufficient evidence is available to compare the safety and efficacy of surgical vitrectomy with laser vitreolysis for the treatment of floaters. A 2017 Cochrane Review did not find any relevant studies that compared the two treatments.

Aggressive marketing campaigns are currently promoting the use of laser vitreolysis for the treatment of floaters. No strong evidence currently exists for the treatment of floaters with laser vitreolysis. Currently, the strongest available evidence comparing these two treatment modalities are retrospective case series.

Enzymatic vitreolysis has been trialled to treat vitreomacular traction (VMT) and anomalous posterior vitreous detachment. Whilst the mechanism of action may have an effect on clinically significant floaters, as of March 2015 there are no clinical trials being undertaken to determine whether this may be a therapeutic alternative to either i) conservative management, or ii) vitrectomy.

Cryotherapy (freezing) or laser photocoagulation are occasionally used alone to wall off a small area of retinal detachment so that the detachment does not spread.

Scleral buckle surgery is an established treatment in which the eye surgeon sews one or more silicone bands (or tyres) to the sclera (the white outer coat of the eyeball). The bands push the wall of the eye inward against the retinal hole, closing the break or reducing fluid flow through it and reducing the effect of vitreous traction thereby allowing the retina to re-attach. Cryotherapy (freezing) is applied around retinal breaks prior to placing the buckle. Often subretinal fluid is drained as part of the buckling procedure. The buckle remains in situ. The most common side effect of a scleral operation is myopic shift. That is, the operated eye will be more short sighted after the operation. Radial scleral buckle is indicated for U-shaped tears or Fishmouth tears, and posterior breaks. Circumferential scleral buckle is indicated for multiple breaks, anterior breaks and wide breaks. Encircling buckles are indicated for breaks covering more than 2 quadrants of retinal area, lattice degeneration located on more than 2 quadrant of retinal area, undetectable breaks, and proliferative vitreous retinopathy.

Suppression may treated with vision therapy, though there is a wide range of opinions on long-term effectiveness between eye care professionals, with little scientific evidence of long-term improvement of suppression, if the underlying cause is not addressed (strabismus, amblyopia, etc.).

In general, the younger the child, the greater the urgency in removing the cataract, because of the risk of amblyopia. For optimal visual development in newborns and young infants, a visually significant unilateral congenital cataract should be detected and removed before age 6 weeks, and visually significant bilateral congenital cataracts should be removed before age 10 weeks.

Some congenital cataracts are too small to affect vision, therefore no surgery or treatment will be done. If they are superficial and small, an ophthalmologist will continue to monitor them throughout a patient's life. Commonly, a patient with small congenital cataracts that do not affect vision will eventually be affected later in life; generally this will take decades to occur.

A 2014 Cochrane Systematic Review studied the effectiveness of two anti-VEGF treatments, ranibizumab and pegaptanib, on patients suffering from macular edema caused by CRVO. Participants on both treatment groups showed a reduction in macular edema symptoms over six months.

Another Cochrane Review examined the effectiveness and safety of two intravitreal steroid treatments, triamcinolone acetonide and dexamethasone, for patients with from CRVO-ME. The results from one trial showed that patients treated with triamcinolone acetonide were significantly more likely to show improvements in visual acuity than those in the control group, though outcome data was missing for a large proportion of the control group. The second trial showed that patients treated with dexamethasone implants did not show improvements in visual acuity, compared to patients in the control group.

Evidence also suggests that intravitreal injections and implantation of steroids inside the eye can result in improved visual outcomes for patients with chronic or refractory diabetic macular edema.

Macular edema sometimes occurs for a few days or weeks after cataract surgery, but most such cases can be successfully treated with NSAID or cortisone eye drops. Prophylactic use of Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs has been reported to reduce the risk of macular edema to some extent.

In 2010 the US FDA approved the use of Lucentis intravitreal injections for macular edema.

Iluvien, a sustained release intravitreal implant developed by Alimera Sciences, has been approved in Austria, Portugal and the U.K. for the treatment of vision impairment associated with chronic diabetic macular edema (DME) considered insufficiently responsive to available therapies. Additional EU country approvals are anticipated.

In 2013 Lucentis by intravitreal injection was approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the UK for the treatment of macular edema caused by diabetes and/or retinal vein occlusion.

On July 29, 2014, Eylea (aflibercept), an intravitreal injection produced by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., was approved to treat DME in the United States.

It is important to distinguish between treatment of the underlying inflammation (PIC) and the treatment of CNV.

2-pronged approach:

Treatment is not always necessary and observation may be appropriate for lesions if they are found in non-sight threatening areas (that is not centrally).

Active lesions of PIC can be treated with corticosteroids taken systemically (tablets) or regionally by injections around the eye (periorbital). It has been argued that treating lesions in this way may help minimise the development of CNV.

The treatment of CNV:

Early treatment is required for this complication. There are several possible treatment methods, but none of these treatments appears to be singly effective for the treatment of CNV.

1. Corticosteroids: systemic or intraocular

2. ‘Second line’ immunosuppressants: There is evidence that combined therapies of steroids and second line immunosuppressants may be important.

3. Surgical excision of the affected area in well selected cases.

4. Intravitreal anti-VEGF agents. Examples are bevacizumab (avastin) and ranibizumab. These relatively new drugs are injected into the eye.

5. Photodynamic therapy (PDT): A photosensitive drug is ‘activated’ by strong light. Consideration may be given to combined therapy of PDT and anti VEGF.

6. Laser photocoagulation: This is occasionally used unless the CNV is subfoveal (affecting the central or macular part of the vision). The laser treatment can damage the vision.

The use of the intravitreal anti VEGF agents namely bevacizumab and ranibizumab have been described recently. The current evidence supporting the use of anti-VEGF agents is based on retrospective case studies and could not be described as strong. However, further data from prospective controlled trials are needed before the therapeutic role of anti-VEGF therapy in the uveitis treatment regimen can be fully determined. The anti VEGF agents furthermore have not been shown to have an anti-inflammatory effect.

Thus, treatment of the underlying inflammatory disease should play a central role in the management of uveitic CNV. A two-pronged treatment that focuses on achieving control of inflammation through the use of corticosteroids and/or immunosuppressive agents, while treating

complications that arise despite adequate disease control with intravitreal anti-VEGF agents, may be useful.

Regular monitoring is essential to achieve a good outcome. This is because even if there is no active inflammation, there may still be occult CNV which requires treatment to avoid suffering vision loss.

Photic retinopathy generally goes away on its own over time, but there is no specific treatment known to be reliable for speeding recovery. One path sometimes attempted, which has unclear results, is to treat the initial macular edema with corticosteroids.

There are good results from multiple doses of intravitreal injections of anti-VEGF drugs such as bevacizumab. A 2017 systematic review update found moderate evidence that aflibercept may have advantages in improving visual outcomes over bevacizumab and ranibizumab, after one year. Present recommended treatment for diabetic macular edema is Modified Grid laser photocoagulation combined with multiple injections of anti-VEGF drugs.

Triamcinolone is a long acting steroid preparation. When injected in the vitreous cavity, it decreases the macular edema (thickening of the retina at the macula) caused due to diabetic maculopathy, and results in an increase in visual acuity. The effect of triamcinolone is transient, lasting up to three months, which necessitates repeated injections for maintaining the beneficial effect. Best results of intravitreal Triamcinolone have been found in eyes that have already undergone cataract surgery. Complications of intravitreal injection of triamcinolone include cataract, steroid-induced glaucoma and endophthalmitis. A systematic review found evidence that eyes treated with the intravitreal injection of triamcinolone had better visual acuity outcomes compared to eyes treated with macular laser grid photocoagulation, or sham injections.

To date, there is no known effective treatment for the non-proliferative form of macular telangiectasia type 2.

Treatment options are limited. No treatment has to date been shown to prevent progression. The variable course of progression of the disease makes it difficult to assess the efficacy of treatments. Retinal laser photocoagulation is not helpful. In fact, laser therapy may actually enhance vessel ectasia and promote intraretinal fibrosis in these individuals. It is hoped that a better understanding of the pathogenesis of the disease may lead to better treatments.

The use of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors, which have proven so successful in treating age-related macular degeneration, have not proven to be effective in non-proliferative MacTel type 2. Ranibizumab reduces the vascular leak seen on angiography, although microperimetry suggests that neural atrophy may still proceed in treated eyes.In proliferative stages (neovascularisation), treatment with Anti-VEGF can be helpful.

CNTF is believed to have neuroprotective properties and could thus be able to slow down the progression of MacTel type 2. It has been shown to be safe to use in MacTel patients in a phase 1 safety trial.

Patients usually do not require treatment due to benign nature of the disease. In case cataract develops patients generally do well with cataract surgery.

The most crucial aspect of managing patients with macular telangiectasia is recognition of the clinical signs. This condition is relatively uncommon: hence, many practitioners may not be familiar with or experienced in diagnosing the disorder. MacTel must be part of the differential in any case of idiopathic paramacular hemorrhage, vasculopathy, macular edema or focal pigment hypertrophy, especially in those patients without a history of retinopathy or contributory systemic disease.

Treatment options for macular telangiectasia type 1 include laser photocoagulation, intra-vitreal injections of steroids, or anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents. Photocoagulation was recommended by Gass and remains to date the mainstay of treatment. It seems to be successful in causing resolution of exudation and VA improvement or stabilization in selected patients. Photocoagulation should be used sparingly to reduce the chance of producing a symptomatic paracentral scotoma and metamorphopsia. Small burns (100–200 μm) of moderate intensity in a grid-pattern and on multiple occasions, if necessary, are recommended. It is unnecessary to destroy every dilated capillary, and, particularly during the initial session of photocoagulation, those on the edge of the capillary-free zone should be avoided.

Intravitreal injections of triamcinolone acetonide (IVTA) which have proved to be beneficial in the treatment of macular edema by their anti-inflammatory effect, their downregulation of VEGF production, and stabilization of the blood retinal barrier were reported anecdotally in the management of macular telangiectasia type 1. In two case reports, IVTA of 4 mg allowed a transitory reduction of retinal edema, with variable or no increase in VA. As expected with all IVTA injections, the edema recurred within 3–6 months, and no permanent improvement could be shown.14,15 In general, the effect of IVTA is short-lived and complications, mainly increased intraocular pressure and cataract, limit its use.

Indocyanine green angiography-guided laser photocoagulation directed at the leaky microaneurysms and vessels combined with sub-Tenon’s capsule injection of triamcinolone acetonide has also been reported in a limited number of patients with macular telangiectasia type 1 with improvement or stabilization of vision after a mean follow-up of 10 months.16 Further studies are needed to assess the efficacy of this treatment modality.

Recently, intravitreal injections of anti-VEGF agents, namely bevacizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeted against pro-angiogenic, circulatory VEGF, and ranibizumab, a FDA-approved monoclonal antibody fragment that targets all VEGF-A isoforms, have shown improved visual outcome and reduced leakage in macular edema form diabetes and retinal venous occlusions. In one reported patient with macular telangiectasia type 1, a single intravitreal bevacizumab injection resulted in a marked increase in VA from 20/50 to 20/20, with significant and sustained decrease in both leakage on FA and cystoid macular edema on OCT up to 12 months. It is likely that patients with macular telangiectasia type 1 with pronounced macular edema from leaky telangiectasis may benefit functionally and morphologically from intravitreal anti-VEGF injections, but this warrants further studies.

Today, laser photocoagulation remains mostly effective, but the optimal treatment of macular telangiectasia type 1 is questioned, and larger series comparing different treatment modalities seem warranted. The rarity of the disease however, makes it difficult to assess in a controlled randomized manner.

However, these treatment modalities should be considered only in cases of marked and rapid vision loss secondary to macular edema or CNV. Otherwise, a conservative approach is recommended, since many of these patients will stabilize without intervention.

Peri-ocular injection of corticosteroids (injection of corticosteroids very close but not into the eye). In resistant cases oral administration of corticosteroids, immunosuppressive drugs, and laser or cryotherapy of the involved area may be indicated.

Steroid implants have been explored as a treatment option for individuals with non-infectious uveitis. Research comparing fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implants to standard-of-care treatments (prednisolone with immunosuppressive agents) found that while the steroid implant treatment possibly prevents the recurrence of uveitis, there may be adverse safety outcomes, such as the increased risk for needing cataract surgery and surgery to lower intraocular pressure.

A Cochrane Review sought to evaluate the effects of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis for endophthalmitis following cataract surgery. The review showed high-certainty evidence that antibiotic injections in the eye with cefuroxime at the end of surgery lowers the chance of endophthalmitis. Also, the review showed moderate evidence that antibiotic eye drops (levofloxacin or chloramphenicol) with antibiotic injections (cefuroxime or penicillin) probably lowers the chance of endophthalmitis compared with injections or eye drops alone. Separate studies from the research showed that a periocular injection of penicillin with chloramphenicol-suphadimidine eye drops, and an intracameral cefuroxime injection with topical levofloxacin resulted in a risk reduction of developing endophthalmitis following cataract surgery for subjects.

In the case of intravitreal injections, however, antibiotics are not effective. Studies have demonstrated no difference between rates of infection with and without antibiotics when intravitreal injections are performed. The only consistent method of antibioprophylaxis in this instance is a solution of povidone-iodine applied pre-injection.

Several options exist for the treatment of BRVO. These treatments aim for the two of the most significant complications of BRVO, namely macular edema and neovascularization.

- Systemic treatment with oral Aspirin, subcutaneous Heparin, or intravenous thrombolysis have not been shown to be effective treatments for CRVO and for BRVO no reliable clinical trial has been published.

- Laser treatment of the macular area to reduce macular edema is indicated in patients who have 20/40 or worse vision and did not spontaneously improve for at least 3 months (to permit the maximum spontaneous resolution) after the development of the vein occlusion. It is typically administered with the argon laser and is focused on edematous retina within the arcades drained by the obstructed vein and avoiding the foveal avascular zone. Leaking microvascular abnormalities may be treated directly, but prominent collateral vessels should be avoided.

- The second indication of laser treatment is in case of neovascularization. Retinal photocoagulation is applied to the involved retina to cover the entire involved segment, extending from the arcade out to the periphery. Ischemia alone is not an indication for treatment provided that follow-up could be maintained.

- Preservative-free, nondispersive Triamcinolone acetonide in 1 or 4 mg dosage may be injected into the vitreous to treat macular edema but has complications including elevated intraocular pressure and development of cataract. Triamcinolone injection is shown to have similar effect on visual acuity when compared with standard care (Laser therapy), However, the rates of elevated intraocular pressure and cataract formation is much higher with the triamcinolone injection, especially the higher dosage. Intravitreal injection of Dexamethasone implant (Ozurdex; 700,350 μg) is being studied, its effect may last for 180 days. The injection may be repeated however with less pronounced effect. Although the implant was designed to cause less complications, pressure rise and cataract formation is noted with this treatment too.

- Anti-VEGF drugs such as Bevacizumab (Avastin; 1.25 -2.5 mg in 0.05ml) and Ranibizumab (lucentis) injections are being used and investigated. Intravitreal anti-VEGFs have a low incidence of adverse side effects compared with intravitreal corticosteroids, but are currently short acting requiring frequent injections. Anti-VEGF injection may be used for macular edema or neovascularization. The mechanism of action and duration of anti-VEGF effect on macular edema is currently unknown. The intraocular levels of VEGF are increased in eyes with macular edema secondary to BRVO and the elevated VEGF levels are correlated to the degree and severity of the areas of capillary nonperfusion and macular edema.

- Surgery is employed occasionally for longstanding vitreous hemorrhage and other serious complications such as epiretinal membrane and retinal detachment.

- Arteriovenous sheathotomy has been reported in small, uncontrolled series of patients with BRVO. BRVO typically occurs at arteriovenous crossings, where the artery and vein share a common adventitial sheath. In arteriovenous sheathotomy an incision is made in the adventitial sheath adjacent to the arteriovenous crossing and is extended along the membrane that holds the blood vessels in position to the point where they cross, the overlying artery is then separated from the vein.

The patient needs urgent examination by an ophthalmologist, preferably a vitreoretinal specialist who will usually decide for urgent intervention to provide intravitreal injection of potent antibiotics. Injections of vancomycin (to kill Gram-positive bacteria) and ceftazidime (to kill Gram-negative bacteria) are routine. Even though antibiotics can have negative impacts on the retina in high concentrations, the facts that visual acuity worsens in 65% of endophthalmitis patients and prognosis gets poorer the longer an infection goes untreated make immediate intervention necessary. Endophthalmitis patients may also require an urgent surgery (pars plana vitrectomy), and evisceration may be necessary to remove a severe and intractable infection which could result in a blind and painful eye.

Steroids may be injected intravitreally if the cause is allergic.

In patients with acute endophthalmitis, combined steroid treatment with antibiotics have been found to improve visual outcomes, versus patients only treated with antibiotics, but any improvements on the resolution acute endophthalmitis is unknown.

Galactosemic infants present clinical symptoms just days after the onset of a galactose diet. They include difficulty feeding, diarrhea, lethargy, hypotonia, jaundice, cataract, and hepatomegaly (enlarged liver). If not treated immediately, and many times even with treatment, severe mental retardation, verbal dyspraxia (difficulty), motor abnormalities, and reproductive complications may ensue. The most effective treatment for many of the initial symptoms is complete removal of galactose from the diet. Breast milk and cow's milk should be replaced with soy alternatives. Infant formula based on casein hydrolysates and dextrin maltose as a carbohydrate source can also be used for initial management, but are still high in galactose. The reason for long-term complications despite a discontinuation of the galactose diet is vaguely understood. However, it has been suggested that endogenous (internal) production of galactose may be the cause.

The treatment for galactosemic cataract is no different from general galactosemia treatment. In fact, galactosemic cataract is one of the few symptoms that is actually reversible. Infants should be immediately removed from a galactose diet when symptoms present, and the cataract should disappear and visibility should return to normal. Aldose reductase inhibitors, such as sorbinil, have also proven promising in preventing and reversing galactosemic cataracts. AR inhibitors hinder aldose reductase from synthesizing galactitol in the lens, and thus restricts the osmotic swelling of the lens fibers. Other AR inhibitors include the acetic acid compounds zopolrestat, tolrestat, alrestatin, and epalrestat. Many of these compounds have not been successful in clinical trials due to adverse pharmokinetic properties, inadequate efficacy and efficiency, and toxic side effects. Testing on such drug-treatments continues in order to determine potential long-term complications, and for a more detailed mechanism of how AR inhibitors prevent and reverse the galactosemic cataract.

Uveitis is typically treated with glucocorticoid steroids, either as topical eye drops (prednisolone acetate) or as oral therapy. Prior to the administration of corticosteroids, corneal ulcers must be ruled out. This is typically done using a fluoresence dye test. In addition to corticosteroids, topical cycloplegics, such as atropine or homatropine, may be used. Successful treatment of active uveitis increases T-regulatory cells in the eye, which likely contributes to disease regression.

In some cases an injection of posterior subtenon triamcinolone acetate may also be given to reduce the swelling of the eye.

Antimetabolite medications, such as methotrexate are often used for recalcitrant or more aggressive cases of uveitis. Experimental treatments with Infliximab or other anti-TNF infusions may prove helpful.

The anti-diabetic drug metformin is reported to inhibit the process that causes the inflammation in uveitis.

In the case of herpetic uveitis, anti-viral medications, such as valaciclovir or aciclovir, may be administered to treat the causative viral infection.

Young children with strabismus normally suppress the visual field of one eye (or part of it), whereas adults who develop strabismus normally do not suppress and therefore suffer from double vision (diplopia). This also means that adults (and older children) have a higher risk of post-operative diplopia after undergoing strabismus surgery than young children. Patients who have undergone strabismus surgery at a young age often have monofixation syndrome (with peripheral binocular fusion and a central suppression scotoma).

Non-surgical treatments of FCED may be used to treat symptoms of early disease. Medical management includes topical hypertonic saline, the use of a hairdryer to dehydrate the precorneal tear film, and therapeutic soft contact lenses. Hypertonic saline draws water out of the cornea through osmosis. When using a hairdryer, the patient is instructed to hold it at an arm's length or directed across the face on a cold setting, to dry out the epithelial blisters. This can be done two or three times a day. Definitive treatment, however, (especially with increased corneal edema) is surgical in the form of corneal transplantation. The most common types of surgery for FCED are Descemet's stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) and Descemet's membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK), which account for over half of corneal transplants in the United States.

More speculative future directions in the treatment of FED include in-vitro expansion of human corneal endothelial cells for transplantation, artificial corneas (keratoprosthesis) and genetic modification. Surgery where the central diseased endothelium is stripped off but not replaced with donor tissue, with subsequent Rho-Associated Kinase (ROCK) inhibition of endothelial cell division may offer a viable medical treatment.

A greater understanding of FED pathophysiology may assist in the future with the development of treatments to prevent progression of disease. Although much progress has been made in the research and treatment of FED, many questions remain to be answered. The exact causes of illness, the prediction of disease progression and delivery of an accurate prognosis, methods of prevention and effective nonsurgical treatment are all the subject of inquiries that necessitate an answer.

Increased attention must be given to research that can address the most basic questions of how the disease develops: what are the biomolecular pathways implicated in disease, and what genetic or environmental factors contribute to its progression? In addition to shaping our understanding of FED, identification of these factors would be essential for the prevention and management of this condition.