t84a wrote:
My point is, if you're willing to take the increased risk of infection (which may lead to blindness) with an intraocular injection, you're better off getting a vitrectomy-a proven surgery.
I don't think an intraocular injection carries more risk than surgery...a needle enters the eye instead of 3=1 wound instead of 3=less chance of dangerous bacteria to enter the eye...and also the retinal detachment risk should be lower because a needle that enters the eye should stress the retina less than a hoover that sucks some jelly which is stuck to the retina.

That said,I agree with the fact that a proven surgery of >99% effectiveness and a low risk profile has a risk-benefit ratio extremely better than an almost risk free injection ("operating time"...5 seconds?) which is almost ineffective and,maybe,to be effective needs to be repeated (a procedure with 1:10000000 risk rate which needs to be repeated daily in order to survive,is actually very risky in the long run...a blatant example is:that's why almost everyone has had a car accident:despite driving a car once is almost risk-free,add "almost" to "almost" and you will get the "risk" sooner or later).

I would prefer vitrectomy both to a most probably ineffective/partially effective,and not at all risky,intraocular injection ,and to a proven effective intraocular injection,and almost risk-free,but which needs to be repeated in order to provide effectiveness (that's why I am not too keen on laser too:both "not as much effective as FOV",and "a laser beam is risk free",but what they don't say is that 1000 laser beams are probably akin to the risk profile of FOV with less efficiency)...but to say that ONE vitrectomy is safer that ONE intraocular injection I don't think you're quite right.

I would say vitrectomy is very likely to cure your operated eye "in one shot",its effectiveness is proven and it is a very low-risk and quick procedure,and an intraocular injection that would assure to cure symptoms most likely (at the present time not available) and does not need to be repeated (not even "alternative procedures" without proven effectiveness do contemplate such a thing) if it existed would be safer than vitrectomy,but is it better to be 99% sure to rid yourself of floaters with a 0,5% risk of complications,or a 50% chance of having your floaters improved (not even cured),with a 0,1% risk profile? (assuming the injection does not have to be repeated let's say 10 times,in which case the risk profile of the repeated injections would be more than the risk of vitrectomy).

Where did you get the suggestion that vitrectomy could be safer than a simple injection,though?If there are reliable studies that confirm this,glad to say I've written a bunch of BS :),but sincerely,common sense seems to suggest otherwise (obviously,taking into account risk profile only).