Search Results

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate structural differences in amniotic membrane fragments subjected to different preservation techniques for potential ophthalmologic applications.
METHODS: Three placentas were collected from healthy donors, and four amniotic membrane fragments were prepared from each placenta. The fragments were divided into four groups with three samples each: cryopreserved, lyophilized, vacuum-dried using a vacuum concentrator, and fresh (control). After processing, the fragments were fixed, sectioned, and analyzed using scanning transmission electron microscopy to assess tissue morphology.
RESULTS: All samples met the established evaluation criteria. No morphological differences were observed among the groups. The structural characteristics of lyophilized and vacuum-dried membranes were comparable with those of cryopreserved and fresh membranes. However, vacuum drying demonstrated the greatest practicality for ophthalmologic use, as it allows membrane availability at any time and storage at room temperature.
CONCLUSION: Vacuum drying using a vacuum concentrator, lyophilization, and cryopreservation preserve the morphological characteristics of the human amniotic membrane similar to those of fresh tissue. A standardized protocol using a vacuum concentrator may be established owing to its advantages in storage convenience and accessibility.

Keywords: Amnion/transplantation; Cryopreservation/methods; Freeze drying; Lyophilization; Ophthalmologic surgical procedures; Regenerative medicine

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify barriers to diabetic retinopathy screening among a socioeconomically vulnerable urban population in northeast Brazil.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted during a diabetic retinopathy screening campaign at primary healthcare units. Ninety-five patients with diabetes underwent retinal examinations and completed a structured interview. Clinical, demographic, and socioeconomic data were collected.
RESULTS: The study population consisted predominantly of older adults (mean age: 60.7 ± 10.5 years), with a high prevalence of type 2 diabetes (99.0%) and low educational attainment. Most participants were economically inactive (81.1%) and reported low income (83.2%). Diabetic retinopathy and maculopathy were highly prevalent, affecting 50.0% and 22.9% of participants, respectively. Longer duration of diabetes was significantly associated with greater awareness of diabetic retinopathy (p=0.035), higher HbA1c levels (p<0.001), and increased prevalence of diabetic retinopathy (p=0.013) and maculopathy (p=0.002). Notably, 33.3% of participants reported difficulties attending medical appointments for diabetes management. In addition, 78.1% experienced challenges scheduling ophthalmologic evaluations, and 76.3% reported that no ophthalmologist was available in their city through the public healthcare system. Financial constraints also limited adherence to recommended dietary practices (90.4%) and impaired glycemic control, with more than half of participants reporting difficulty maintaining target glucose levels.
CONCLUSION: Major barriers to diabetic retinopathy screening included limited awareness of the importance of screening, financial hardship, and transportation challenges. Targeted educational initiatives and structural interventions such as expanded screening programs incorporating telemedicine and subsidized transportation—may improve screening adherence among vulnerable populations.

Keywords: Diabetic retinopathy; Mass screening; Health services accessibility; Health knowledge, attitudes, practices; Socioeconomic factors

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify barriers to diabetic retinopathy screening among a socioeconomically vulnerable urban population in northeast Brazil.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted during a diabetic retinopathy screening campaign at primary healthcare units. Ninety-five patients with diabetes underwent retinal examinations and completed a structured interview. Clinical, demographic, and socioeconomic data were collected.
RESULTS: The study population consisted predominantly of older adults (mean age: 60.7 ± 10.5 years), with a high prevalence of type 2 diabetes (99.0%) and low educational attainment. Most participants were economically inactive (81.1%) and reported low income (83.2%). Diabetic retinopathy and maculopathy were highly prevalent, affecting 50.0% and 22.9% of participants, respectively. Longer duration of diabetes was significantly associated with greater awareness of diabetic retinopathy (p=0.035), higher HbA1c levels (p<0.001), and increased prevalence of diabetic retinopathy (p=0.013) and maculopathy (p=0.002). Notably, 33.3% of participants reported difficulties attending medical appointments for diabetes management. In addition, 78.1% experienced challenges scheduling ophthalmologic evaluations, and 76.3% reported that no ophthalmologist was available in their city through the public healthcare system. Financial constraints also limited adherence to recommended dietary practices (90.4%) and impaired glycemic control, with more than half of participants reporting difficulty maintaining target glucose levels.
CONCLUSION: Major barriers to diabetic retinopathy screening included limited awareness of the importance of screening, financial hardship, and transportation challenges. Targeted educational initiatives and structural interventions such as expanded screening programs incorporating telemedicine and subsidized transportation—may improve screening adherence among vulnerable populations.

Keywords: Diabetic retinopathy; Mass screening; Health services accessibility; Health knowledge, attitudes, practices; Socioeconomic factors

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify barriers to diabetic retinopathy screening among a socioeconomically vulnerable urban population in northeast Brazil.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted during a diabetic retinopathy screening campaign at primary healthcare units. Ninety-five patients with diabetes underwent retinal examinations and completed a structured interview. Clinical, demographic, and socioeconomic data were collected.
RESULTS: The study population consisted predominantly of older adults (mean age: 60.7 ± 10.5 years), with a high prevalence of type 2 diabetes (99.0%) and low educational attainment. Most participants were economically inactive (81.1%) and reported low income (83.2%). Diabetic retinopathy and maculopathy were highly prevalent, affecting 50.0% and 22.9% of participants, respectively. Longer duration of diabetes was significantly associated with greater awareness of diabetic retinopathy (p=0.035), higher HbA1c levels (p<0.001), and increased prevalence of diabetic retinopathy (p=0.013) and maculopathy (p=0.002). Notably, 33.3% of participants reported difficulties attending medical appointments for diabetes management. In addition, 78.1% experienced challenges scheduling ophthalmologic evaluations, and 76.3% reported that no ophthalmologist was available in their city through the public healthcare system. Financial constraints also limited adherence to recommended dietary practices (90.4%) and impaired glycemic control, with more than half of participants reporting difficulty maintaining target glucose levels.
CONCLUSION: Major barriers to diabetic retinopathy screening included limited awareness of the importance of screening, financial hardship, and transportation challenges. Targeted educational initiatives and structural interventions such as expanded screening programs incorporating telemedicine and subsidized transportation—may improve screening adherence among vulnerable populations.

Keywords: Diabetic retinopathy; Mass screening; Health services accessibility; Health knowledge, attitudes, practices; Socioeconomic factors