Literature DB >> 27124883

LONG-TERM RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF VISUAL ACUITY AND OPTICAL COHERENCE TOPOGRAPHIC CHANGES AFTER SINGLE VERSUS DOUBLE PEELING DURING VITRECTOMY FOR MACULAR EPIRETINAL MEMBRANES.

Jesse J Jung1, Quan V Hoang, Megan L Ridley-Lane, Dov B Sebrow, Elona Dhrami-Gavazi, Stanley Chang.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the long-term effect of internal limiting membrane with associated epiretinal membrane (ERM) peeling versus single peeling alone in terms of best-corrected visual acuity and anatomical outcomes on spectral-domain optical coherence tomography.
METHODS: This retrospective comparative cohort study of patients who had follow-up of >1 year and underwent surgery for ERM by a single surgeon (S.C.) from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2012 compared cases in which the internal limiting membrane was stained with brilliant blue G to facilitate double peeling (n = 42) and single peeling (n = 43) of the ERM alone for up to 3 years of follow-up. For continuous variables, an independent two-tailed t-test was performed. For binary variables, the Fisher's exact test was performed. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05.
RESULTS: Eighty-five of 142 patients fit the inclusion criteria. At the last follow-up, the single-peeling group were more likely to have ERM remaining in the central fovea postoperatively (P = 0.0020, becoming significant by postoperative Year 1, P = 0.022) and less likely to develop inner retinal dimpling (P = 0.000, becoming significant by postoperative Month 3, P = 0.015). At 3 years, central foveal thickness had decreased in the single-peeling group by -136.9 µm and by -84.1 μm in the double-peeling group, which was not significantly different (P = 0.08). Mean best-corrected visual acuity improved in both the groups at all time points. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups at 3 years (P = 0.44; single-peeling group, 0.32 ± 0.42, Snellen 20/42; double-peeling group, 0.23 ± 0.27, Snellen 20/34).
CONCLUSION: Brilliant blue G-assisted internal limiting membrane peeling for ERM results in a more thorough removal of residual ERM around the paracentral fovea. However, there is no difference in long-term best-corrected visual acuity at 3 years and a greater likelihood of inner retinal dimpling.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27124883      PMCID: PMC5077635          DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000001055

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Retina        ISSN: 0275-004X            Impact factor:   4.256


  47 in total

1.  Surgery for epimacular membrane: impact of retinal internal limiting membrane removal on functional outcome.

Authors:  Etienne H Bovey; Sylvie Uffer; Farid Achache
Journal:  Retina       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 4.256

2.  Epiretinal membrane surgery with or without internal limiting membrane peeling.

Authors:  Alvin Kh Kwok; Timothy Yy Lai; Kenneth Sc Yuen
Journal:  Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 4.207

3.  Associations between macular findings by optical coherence tomography and visual outcomes after epiretinal membrane removal.

Authors:  Min Hee Suh; Jong Mo Seo; Kyu Hyung Park; Hyeong Gon Yu
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2008-12-03       Impact factor: 5.258

4.  Retinal nerve fiber layer thickness modification after internal limiting membrane peeling.

Authors:  Nicole Balducci; Mariachiara Morara; Chiara Veronese; Carlo Torrazza; Francesco Pichi; Antonio P Ciardella
Journal:  Retina       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 4.256

5.  Does the presence of an epiretinal membrane alter the cleavage plane during internal limiting membrane peeling?

Authors:  Nihal Kenawy; David Wong; Theodore Stappler; Mario R Romano; Ronald A Das; Gillian Hebbar; Wendy Prime; Heinrich Heimann; Syed K Gibran; Carl M Sheridan; Yin Him Cheung; Paul S Hiscott
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2009-12-14       Impact factor: 12.079

6.  Dissociated optic nerve fiber layer appearance after internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic macular holes.

Authors:  Yasuki Ito; Hiroko Terasaki; Akiko Takahashi; Tomomi Yamakoshi; Mineo Kondo; Makoto Nakamura
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 12.079

7.  Safety testing of indocyanine green and trypan blue using retinal pigment epithelium and glial cell cultures.

Authors:  Timothy L Jackson; Jost Hillenkamp; Bruce C Knight; Jin-Jun Zhang; Dhanes Thomas; Miles R Stanford; John Marshall
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 4.799

8.  "Dissociated optic nerve fiber layer appearance" after internal limiting membrane removal is inner retinal dimpling.

Authors:  Richard F Spaide
Journal:  Retina       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 4.256

9.  Indocyanine green-assisted internal limiting membrane removal in epiretinal membrane surgery: a clinical and histologic study.

Authors:  Alvin K H Kwok; Timothy Y Y Lai; Winnie W Y Li; Donald C F Woo; Nongnart R Chan
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 5.258

10.  Vitrectomy for macular pucker.

Authors:  R G Michels
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1984-11       Impact factor: 12.079

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Vitrectomy with or without internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic epiretinal membrane: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Wei-Cheng Chang; Chin Lin; Cho-Hao Lee; Tzu-Ling Sung; Tao-Hsin Tung; Jorn-Hon Liu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-06-16       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Comparison of Visual Outcome and Morphologic Change between Different Surgical Techniques in Idiopathic Epiretinal Membrane Surgery.

Authors:  Yo-Chen Chang; Chia-Ling Lee; Kuo-Jen Chen; Li-Yi Chiu; Tzu-En Kao; Pei-Kang Liu; Kwou-Yeung Wu; Wen-Chuan Wu
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-04-16       Impact factor: 1.909

3.  Internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling during primary vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Matteo Fallico; Andrea Russo; Antonio Longo; Alfredo Pulvirenti; Teresio Avitabile; Vincenza Bonfiglio; Niccolò Castellino; Gilda Cennamo; Michele Reibaldi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-07-19       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  With or without internal limiting membrane peeling during idiopathic epiretinal membrane surgery: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Qinying Huang; Jinying Li
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-01-19       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Does internal limiting membrane peeling during epiretinal membrane surgery induce microscotomas on microperimetry? Study protocol for PEELING, a randomized controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  Jean-Baptiste Ducloyer; Juliette Ivan; Alexandra Poinas; Olivier Lebreton; Alexandre Bonissent; Paul Fossum; Christelle Volteau; Ramin Tadayoni; Catherine Creuzot-Garchet; Yannick Le Mer; Julien Perol; June Fortin; Anne Chiffoleau; Fanny Billaud; Catherine Ivan; Michel Weber
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2020-06-08       Impact factor: 2.279

6.  Optical coherence tomography angiographic findings of lamellar macular hole: comparisons between tractional and degenerative subtypes.

Authors:  Joon Hyung Yeo; Richul Oh; Joo Yong Lee; June-Gone Kim; Young Hee Yoon; Yoon Jeon Kim
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-08-07       Impact factor: 4.379

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.