Anatomical and functional results of ILM peeling vs. non-peeling in macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment
- PDF / 258,423 Bytes
- 6 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 31 Downloads / 171 Views
RETINAL DISORDERS
Anatomical and functional results of ILM peeling vs. non-peeling in macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment Keissy Sousa 1 & Gil Calvão-Santos 1 & Jorge Costa 1 & Luís Ferreira 2 & Luís Mendonça 1 & Rita Gentil 1 & Nuno Lourenço Gomes 1 Received: 2 April 2020 / Revised: 19 May 2020 / Accepted: 26 May 2020 # Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract Purpose To compare anatomical and functional results between internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling and non-ILM peeling in macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD). Methods We completed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) due to macula-off RRD. ILM peeling (P) versus non-ILM peeling (NP) groups were compared regarding best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), anatomical success, endotamponade, concomitant scleral band placement and BCVA gain for epiretinal membranes (ERM) resubjected to PPV. Statistical significance was considered when p < 0.05. Results PPV was conducted in 352 patients, among which 43.5% (n = 153) were in the P group and 55.6% (n = 196) were in the NP group. Both groups had significant BCVA improvement during the study period (p < 0.001), but with no significant difference between them. Anatomical success was similar between P (84.2%) and NP (87.2%) groups. No difference was found with regard to endotamponade (p = 0.07) or concomitant scleral band placement (p = 0.43). The NP group developed subsequent ERM more frequently (p = 0.004), but BCVA gains for eyes requiring repeat PPV for ERM were not found (p = 0.14). Conclusions Although ERM formation and greater anatomical success are reasons to support the use of ILM peeling in RRD, we did not observe any anatomical or functional difference regarding ILM peeling or functional gain with secondary ERM peeling. Keywords Epiretinal membrane . Internal limiting membrane . Macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachments . Peeling . Pars plana vitrectomy
Introduction Peeling of the macular internal limiting membrane (ILM) has been shown to improve visual outcomes in a number of diseases, most notably large macular holes [1]. As a result, this maneuver is performed in a wide variety of vitreoretinal conditions, including rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) [1]. Epiretinal membrane (ERM) is one of the most common postoperative complications of RRD surgery, with an incidence of 3–8.5% when only episcleral buckling procedure is used, and 6.1–12% when
* Keissy Sousa [email protected] 1
Retina Department, Hospital de Braga, Sete Fontes, 4710-243 Braga, Portugal
2
Medical School of Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal
pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) is performed [2–4]. The Silicone Study Group reported that ERM occurs in 15% of eyes after successful PPV for retinal detachment that is complicated by proliferative vitreoretinopathy (PVR) [5]. In recent studies, the incidence of ERM after repair of RRD with PPV alone was estimated to vary between 6% and 13% [6, 7]. The ILM is the basement membrane of the Mül
Data Loading...
