AIMS: To compare conventional methods of epiretinal membrane peeling with viscodissection. METHODS: 154 eyes with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) that underwent pars plana vitrectomy with membrane dissection (89 traditional, 65 viscodissection) were studied retrospectively. Incidence of retinal breaks (RBs), length of time under anaesthesia, postoperative intraocular pressure, retinal reattachment rate, and final visual acuity (VA) were measured. RESULTS: To compare cases of similar complexity, a "complexity score" was defined. The average complexity score for cases done with and without viscodissection was 4.7 and 3.2, respectively. The mean frequency of RBs in eyes undergoing viscodissection was 0.43 (SD 0.5) v 0.14 (0.35) RBs/eye without viscodissection. In complex cases, the frequency of posterior/peripheral RBs was 0.31 (0.47)/0.13 (0.34) RBs/eye, respectively, with viscodissection v 0.12 (0.33)/0.23 (0.43) RBs/eye without viscodissection. None of these differences were statistically significant. The average preoperative/postoperative VA (logMAR) in the viscodissection cohort was 1.7/1.3 (range 0.3 to >1.9/0.1 to >1.9) v 1.4/1 (range 0.48 to >1.9/0.1 to >1.9) in the non-viscodissection cohort, among eyes with 6 months of follow up. Anaesthesia duration was significantly shorter for cases done without viscodissection (p=0.03), but cases done with viscodissection were significantly more complex than cases done without viscodissection (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Viscodissection appears to be a safe and effective alternative technique in eyes with PDR. Owing to the retrospective nature of the study, additional studies are warranted.
AIMS: To compare conventional methods of epiretinal membrane peeling with viscodissection. METHODS: 154 eyes with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) that underwent pars plana vitrectomy with membrane dissection (89 traditional, 65 viscodissection) were studied retrospectively. Incidence of retinal breaks (RBs), length of time under anaesthesia, postoperative intraocular pressure, retinal reattachment rate, and final visual acuity (VA) were measured. RESULTS: To compare cases of similar complexity, a "complexity score" was defined. The average complexity score for cases done with and without viscodissection was 4.7 and 3.2, respectively. The mean frequency of RBs in eyes undergoing viscodissection was 0.43 (SD 0.5) v 0.14 (0.35) RBs/eye without viscodissection. In complex cases, the frequency of posterior/peripheral RBs was 0.31 (0.47)/0.13 (0.34) RBs/eye, respectively, with viscodissection v 0.12 (0.33)/0.23 (0.43) RBs/eye without viscodissection. None of these differences were statistically significant. The average preoperative/postoperative VA (logMAR) in the viscodissection cohort was 1.7/1.3 (range 0.3 to >1.9/0.1 to >1.9) v 1.4/1 (range 0.48 to >1.9/0.1 to >1.9) in the non-viscodissection cohort, among eyes with 6 months of follow up. Anaesthesia duration was significantly shorter for cases done without viscodissection (p=0.03), but cases done with viscodissection were significantly more complex than cases done without viscodissection (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Viscodissection appears to be a safe and effective alternative technique in eyes with PDR. Owing to the retrospective nature of the study, additional studies are warranted.
Authors: Stanislao Rizzo; Federica Genovesi-Ebert; Emanuele Di Bartolo; Andrea Vento; Sofia Miniaci; George Williams Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2008-02-20 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Berk Gonenc; Marcin A Balicki; James Handa; Peter Gehlbach; Cameron N Riviere; Russell H Taylor; Iulian Iordachita Journal: Rep U S Date: 2012-12-20
Authors: Raul Velez-Montoya; Jose Luis Guerrero-Naranjo; Gerardo Garcia-Aguirre; Virgilio Morales-Cantón; Jans Fromow-Guerra; Hugo Quiroz-Mercado Journal: Clin Ophthalmol Date: 2011-12-20