No medical or surgical treatment is available for this condition.

It can be treated with laser coagulation, and more commonly with medication that stops and sometimes reverses the growth of blood vessels.

A randomized control trial found that bevacizumab and ranibizumab had similar efficacy, and reported no significant increase in adverse events with bevacizumab. A 2014 Cochrane review found that the systemic safety of bevacizumab and ranibizumab are similar when used to treat neovascular AMD, except for gastrointestinal disorders. Bevacizumab however is not FDA approved for treatment of macular degeneration. A controversy in the UK involved the off-label use of cheaper bevacizumab over the approved, but expensive, ranibizumab. Ranibizumab is a smaller fragment, Fab fragment, of the parent bevacizumab molecule specifically designed for eye injections. Other approved antiangiogenic drugs for the treatment of neo-vascular AMD include pegaptanib and aflibercept.

The American Academy of Ophthalmology practice guidelines do not recommend laser coagulation therapy for macular degeneration, but state that it may be useful in people with new blood vessels in the choroid outside of the fovea who don't respond to drug treatment. There is strong evidence that laser coagulation will result in the disappearance of drusen but does not affect choroidal neovascularisation. A 2007 Cochrane review on found that laser photocoagulation of new blood vessels in the choroid outside of the fovea is effective and economical method, but that the benefits are limited for vessels next to or below the fovea.

Photodynamic therapy has also been used to treat wet AMD. The drug verteporfin is administered intravenously; light of a certain wavelength is then applied to the abnormal blood vessels. This activates the verteporfin destroying the vessels.

Cataract surgery could possibly improve visual outcomes for people with AMD, though there have been concerns of surgery increasing the progression of AMD. A randomized controlled trial found that people who underwent immediate cataract surgery (within 2 weeks) had improved visual acuity and better quality of life outcomes than those who underwent delayed cataract surgery (6 months).

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.

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.

Laser treatment of drusen has been studied. While it is possible to eliminate drusen with this treatment strategy, it has been shown that this fails to reduce the risk of developing the choroidal neovascularisation which causes the blindness associated with age-related macular degeneration.

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.

Vitrectomy is an increasingly used treatment for retinal detachment. It involves the removal of the vitreous gel and is usually combined with filling the eye with either a gas bubble (SF or CF gas) or silicone oil (PDMS). An advantage of using gas in this operation is that there is no myopic shift after the operation and gas is absorbed within a few weeks. PDMS, if used, needs to be removed after a period of 2–8 months depending on surgeon's preference. Silicone oil is more commonly used in cases associated with proliferative vitreo-retinopathy (PVR). A disadvantage is that a vitrectomy always leads to more rapid progression of a cataract in the operated eye. In many places vitrectomy is the most commonly performed operation for the treatment of retinal detachment. A recent Cochrane Review assessing various tamponade agents for patients with retinal detachment associated with PVR found that patients treated with CF gas and standard silicone oil had visual and anatomic advantages over patients using SF. Heavy silicone oil did not show any advantages over regular silicone oil.

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.

CNV is conventionally treated with intravitreal injections of angiogenesis inhibitors (also known as "anti-VEGF" drugs) to control neovascularization and reduce the area of fluid below the retinal pigment epithelium. Angiogenesis inhibitors include pegaptanib, ranibizumab and bevacizumab (known by a variety of trade names, such as Macugen, Avastin or Lucentis). These inhibitors slow or stop the formation of new blood vessels (angiogenesis), typically by binding to or deactivating the transmission of vascular endothelial growth factor ('VEGF'), a signal protein produced by cells to stimulate formation of new blood vessels. The effectiveness of angiogenesis inhibitors has been shown to significantly improve visual prognosis with CNV, the recurrence rate for these neovascular areas remains high.

CNV may also be treated with photodynamic therapy coupled with a photosensitive drug such as verteporfin (Visudyne). The drug is given intravenously. It is then activated in the eye by a laser light. The drug destroys the new blood vessels, and prevents any new vessels forming by forming thrombi.

The treatment method used depends on the cause of the hemorrhage. In most cases, the patient is advised to rest with the head elevated 30–45°, and sometimes to put patches over the eyes to limit movement prior to treatment in order to allow the blood to settle. The patient is also advised to avoid taking medications that cause blood thinning (such as aspirin or similar medications).

The goal of the treatment is to fix the cause of the hemorrhage as quickly as possible. Retinal tears are closed by Laser treatment or cryotherapy, and detached retinas are reattached surgically.

Even after treatment, it can take months for the body to clear all of the blood from the vitreous. In cases of vitreous hemorrhage due to detached retina,long-standing vitreous hemorrhage with a duration of more than 2–3 months, or cases associated with rubeosis iridis or glaucoma, a vitrectomy may be necessary to remove the standing blood in the vitreous.

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.

Barrage laser is at times done prophylactically around a hole or tear associated with lattice degeneration in an eye at risk of developing a retinal detachment. It is not known if surgical interventions such as laser photocoagulation or cryotherapy is effective in preventing retinal detachment in patients with lattice degeneration or "asymptomatic" retinal detachment. Laser photocoagulation has been shown to reduce risks of retinal detachment in "symptomatic" lattice degeneration. There are documented cases wherein retina detached from areas which were otherwise healthy despite being treated previously with laser.

Anti-muscarinic topical medications in children under 18 years of age may slow the worsening of myopia. These treatments include pirenzepine gel, cyclopentolate eye drops, and atropine eye drops. While these treatments were shown to be effective in slowing the progression of myopia, side effects included light sensitivity and near blur.

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.

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.

Vitrectomy is the common way to treat a macular hole. It is done by placing a gas bubble in the vitreous of the eye which helps flatten macular hole and holds it in place as the eye heals. The gas bubble slowly shrinks on its own. Treatment is also done using ocriplasmin.

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.

Scleral reinforcement surgery is aimed to cover the thinning posterior pole with a supportive material to withstand intraocular pressure and prevent further progression of the posterior staphyloma. The strain is reduced, although damage from the pathological process cannot be reversed. By stopping the progression of the disease, vision may be maintained or improved.

Surgeons can remove or peel the membrane through the sclera and improve vision by 2 or more Snellen lines. Usually the vitreous is replaced at the same time with clear (BSS) fluid, in a vitrectomy. Surgery is not usually recommended unless the distortions are severe enough to interfere with daily living, since there are the usual hazards of surgery, infections, and a possibility of retinal detachment. More common complications are high intraocular pressure, bleeding in the eye, and cataracts, which are the most frequent complication of vitrectomy surgery. Many patients will develop a cataract within the first few years after surgery. In fact, the visual distortions and diplopia created by cataracts may sometimes be confused with epiretinal membrane.

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.

Optic pits themselves do not need to be treated. However, patients should follow up with their eye care professional annually or even sooner if the patient notices any visual loss whatsoever. Treatment of PVD or serous retinal detachment will be necessary if either develops in a patient with an optic pit.

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.

Currently, there is no treatment for the disease. However, ophthalmologists recommend wearing sunglasses and hats outdoors and blue-light blocking glasses when exposed to artificial light sources, such as screens and lights. Tobacco smoke and second-hand smoke should be avoided. Animal studies also show that high doses of vitamin A can be detrimental by building up more lipofuscin toxin. Dietary non-supplemental vitamin A intake may not further the disease progression.

Clinical trials are being conducted with promising early results. The trials may one day lead to treatments that might halt, and possibly even reverse, the effects of Stargardt disease using stem cell therapy, gene therapy, or pharmacotherapy.

The Argus retinal prosthesis, an electronic retinal implant, was successfully fitted to a 67-year-old woman in Italy at the Careggi Hospital in 2016. The patient had a very advanced stage of Stargardt’s disease, and a total absence of peripheral and central visual fields.

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.

Careful eye examination by an ophthalmologist or optometrist is critical for diagnosing symptomatic VMA. Imaging technologies such as optical coherence tomography (OCT) have significantly improved the accuracy of diagnosing symptomatic VMA.

A new FDA approved drug was released on the market late 2013. Jetrea (Brand name) or Ocriplasmin (Generic name) is the first drug of its kind used to treat vitreomacular adhension.

Mechanism of Action: Ocriplasmin is a truncated human plasmin with proteolytic activity against protein components of the vitreous body and vitreretinal interface. It dissolves the protein matrix responsible for the vitreomacular adhesion.

Adverse drug reactions: Decreased vision, potential for lens sublaxation, dyschromatopsia (yellow vision), eye pain, floaters, blurred vision.

New Drug comparison Rating gave Jetea a 5 indicating an important advance.

Previously, no recommended treatment was available for the patient with mild symptomatic VMA. In symptomatic VMA patients with more significant vision loss, the standard of care is pars plana vitrectomy (PPV), which involves surgically removing the vitreous from the eye, thereby surgically releasing the symptomatic VMA. In other words, vitrectomy induces PVD to release the traction/adhesion on the retina. An estimated 850,000 vitrectomy procedures are performed globally on an annual basis with 250,000 in the United States alone.

A standard PPV procedure can lead to serious complications including small-gauge PPV. Complications can include retinal detachment, retinal tears, endophthalmitis, and postoperative cataract formation. Additionally, PPV may result in incomplete separation, and it may potentially leave a nidus for vasoactive and vasoproliferative substances, or it may induce development of fibrovascular membranes. As with any invasive surgical procedure, PPV introduces trauma to the vitreous and surrounding tissue.

There are data showing that nonsurgical induction of PVD using ocriplasmin (a recombinant protease with activity against fibronectin and laminin) can offer the benefits of successful PVD while eliminating the risks associated with a surgical procedure, i.e. vitrectomy. Pharmacologic vitreolysis is an improvement over invasive surgery as it induces complete separation, creates a more physiologic state of the vitreomacular interface, prevents the development of fibrovascular membranes, is less traumatic to the vitreous, and is potentially prophylactic. As of 2012, ThromboGenics is still developing the ocriplasmin biological agent. Ocriplasmin is approved recently under the name Jetrea for use in the United States by the FDA.view.

An experimental test of injections of perfluoropropane (CF) on 15 symptomatic eyes of 14 patients showed that vitreomacular traction resolved in 6 eyes within 1 month and resolved in 3 more eyes within 6 months.