Susumu Sakimoto1, Yasushi Ikuno2, Satoko Fujimoto1, Hirokazu Sakaguchi1, Kohji Nishida1. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan. Electronic address: ikuno@ophthal.med.osaka-u.ac.jp.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To document the characteristics of the retinal surface using en face optical coherence tomography (OCT) after internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling during pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for myopic macular diseases. DESIGN: Retrospective, interventional case series. METHODS: We examined 20 eyes of 20 patients with high myopia who underwent PPV with ILM peeling. The patients were followed for at least 6 months postoperatively, and OCT images were examined using spectral-domain OCT. To assess the incidence and patterns of the retinal dimple sign, we reconstructed en face OCT images and quantified the number of dimples during the follow-up period. RESULTS: We identified 3 retinal dimple signs (ie, foveal-centered pattern, linear pattern, and paravascular pattern). The total numbers of retinal dimples at baseline and 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively were 0, 31.8 ± 23.7, 47.95 ± 29.5, and 54.6 ± 30.7, respectively. There were significantly more dimples temporal to the macula compared to the other 3 quadrants at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively (P = .025, P = .0021, and P = .0060, respectively). However, the retinal sensitivities assessed by microperimetry were not correlated with the number of dimples. CONCLUSION: Development of the retinal dimple sign after PPV and ILM peeling in highly myopic eyes was seen in all cases on en face OCT images. Although retinal dimples are benign, care should be taken after ILM peeling in highly myopic eyes.
PURPOSE: To document the characteristics of the retinal surface using en face optical coherence tomography (OCT) after internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling during pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for myopic macular diseases. DESIGN: Retrospective, interventional case series. METHODS: We examined 20 eyes of 20 patients with high myopia who underwent PPV with ILM peeling. The patients were followed for at least 6 months postoperatively, and OCT images were examined using spectral-domain OCT. To assess the incidence and patterns of the retinal dimple sign, we reconstructed en face OCT images and quantified the number of dimples during the follow-up period. RESULTS: We identified 3 retinal dimple signs (ie, foveal-centered pattern, linear pattern, and paravascular pattern). The total numbers of retinal dimples at baseline and 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively were 0, 31.8 ± 23.7, 47.95 ± 29.5, and 54.6 ± 30.7, respectively. There were significantly more dimples temporal to the macula compared to the other 3 quadrants at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively (P = .025, P = .0021, and P = .0060, respectively). However, the retinal sensitivities assessed by microperimetry were not correlated with the number of dimples. CONCLUSION: Development of the retinal dimple sign after PPV and ILM peeling in highly myopic eyes was seen in all cases on en face OCT images. Although retinal dimples are benign, care should be taken after ILM peeling in highly myopic eyes.