Brian Lehpamer1, Erin Moshier2, Patricia Pahk1, Naomi Goldberg1, Jessica Ackert1, James Godbold2, Douglas A Jabs3. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York; Department of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York; The Center for Clinical Trials, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland. Electronic address: douglas.jabs@mssm.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of epiretinal membranes on the response of uveitic macular edema to therapy and on visual acuity outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: One hundred four eyes of 77 patients with uveitic macular edema were identified at a tertiary care center. Epiretinal membranes were diagnosed when identified by 2 investigators' grading of spectral-domain optical coherence tomography and scored for the presence or absence of surface wrinkling. Outcomes included best-corrected visual acuity, central subfield thickness, and rates of macular edema improvement (>20% reduction in central subfield thickness) and resolution (reduction of central subfield thickness to <315 μm) at 3 and 6 months follow-up. RESULTS: Seventy-two eyes of 59 patients had an epiretinal membrane on presentation. Eyes without epiretinal membranes and with epiretinal membranes without surface wrinkling were not significantly different at presentation or at 3 and 6 months follow-up. Conversely, eyes with an epiretinal membrane with retinal surface wrinkling had a greater proportion of eyes with 20/200 or worse visual acuity at presentation, and had worse mean acuities at 3 months (20/94 vs 20/35 for eyes without an epiretinal membrane, P = .002) and at 6 months follow-up (20/110 vs 20/36 for eyes without an epiretinal membrane, P = .02). At 6 months of follow-up the mean central subfield thicknesses were: eyes without an epiretinal membrane, 338 ± 23 μm; and eyes with an epiretinal membrane and surface wrinkling, 405 ± 22 μm (P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: In eyes with epiretinal membranes and retinal surface wrinkling, uveitic macular edema had a poorer visual acuity response to medical therapy and thicker maculae at 6 months.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of epiretinal membranes on the response of uveitic macular edema to therapy and on visual acuity outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: One hundred four eyes of 77 patients with uveitic macular edema were identified at a tertiary care center. Epiretinal membranes were diagnosed when identified by 2 investigators' grading of spectral-domain optical coherence tomography and scored for the presence or absence of surface wrinkling. Outcomes included best-corrected visual acuity, central subfield thickness, and rates of macular edema improvement (>20% reduction in central subfield thickness) and resolution (reduction of central subfield thickness to <315 μm) at 3 and 6 months follow-up. RESULTS: Seventy-two eyes of 59 patients had an epiretinal membrane on presentation. Eyes without epiretinal membranes and with epiretinal membranes without surface wrinkling were not significantly different at presentation or at 3 and 6 months follow-up. Conversely, eyes with an epiretinal membrane with retinal surface wrinkling had a greater proportion of eyes with 20/200 or worse visual acuity at presentation, and had worse mean acuities at 3 months (20/94 vs 20/35 for eyes without an epiretinal membrane, P = .002) and at 6 months follow-up (20/110 vs 20/36 for eyes without an epiretinal membrane, P = .02). At 6 months of follow-up the mean central subfield thicknesses were: eyes without an epiretinal membrane, 338 ± 23 μm; and eyes with an epiretinal membrane and surface wrinkling, 405 ± 22 μm (P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: In eyes with epiretinal membranes and retinal surface wrinkling, uveitic macular edema had a poorer visual acuity response to medical therapy and thicker maculae at 6 months.
Authors: Marion R Munk; Matthias Bolz; Wolfgang Huf; Florian Sulzbacher; Philipp Roberts; Christian Simader; René Rückert; Christopher G Kiss Journal: Retina Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Jay S Duker; Peter K Kaiser; Susanne Binder; Marc D de Smet; Alain Gaudric; Elias Reichel; SriniVas R Sadda; Jerry Sebag; Richard F Spaide; Peter Stalmans Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2013-09-17 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Elizabeth A Sugar; Douglas A Jabs; Michael M Altaweel; Sue Lightman; Nisha Acharya; Albert T Vitale; Jennifer E Thorne Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2011-09-08 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Peter Stalmans; Jay S Duker; Peter K Kaiser; Jeffrey S Heier; Pravin U Dugel; Arnd Gandorfer; J Sebag; Julia A Haller Journal: Retina Date: 2013 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Christiane I Falkner-Radler; Carl Glittenberg; Stefan Hagen; Thomas Benesch; Susanne Binder Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2010-01-04 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: R S Grajewski; A C Boelke; W Adler; S Meyer; A Caramoy; B Kirchhof; C Cursiefen; L M Heindl Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Oren Tomkins-Netzer; Susan Lightman; Lea Drye; John Kempen; Gary N Holland; Narsing A Rao; Richard J Stawell; Albert Vitale; Douglas A Jabs Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2015-09-07 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Kathryn L Pepple; Macklin H Nguyen; Kaivon Pakzad-Vaezi; Kathleen Williamson; Naomi Odell; Cecilia Lee; Thellea K Leveque; Russell N Van Gelder Journal: Retina Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 4.256