| Literature DB >> 27126340 |
Wojciech Lubiński1, Wojciech Gosławski2, Karol Krzystolik2, Maciej Mularczyk3, Leszek Kuprjanowicz2, Michał Post2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate macular function and structure before and after epimacular membrane surgery and to estimate the usefulness of pattern ERG test parameters in predicting the postoperative visual acuity.Entities:
Keywords: Epimacular membrane; OCT; PERG; VA
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27126340 PMCID: PMC4971047 DOI: 10.1007/s10633-016-9543-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Doc Ophthalmol ISSN: 0012-4486 Impact factor: 2.379
Clinical characteristics of EMM eyes before and 12 months after surgery
| Patient | Age (years) | DBCVA (logMAR) | Foveal thickness (µm) | PERG | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P50 amplitude (µV) | N95 amplitude (µV) | P50 implicit time (ms) | |||||||||
| Baseline | 12 months | Baseline | 12 months | Baseline | 12 months | Baseline | 12 months | Baseline | 12 months | ||
| 1 | 66 | 0.52 | 0.08 | 438 | 284 | 3.64 | 4.22 | 5.68 | 6.43 | 51 | 54 |
| 2 | 52 | 0.48 | 0.12 | 508 | 280 | 4.99 | 6.21 | 6.04 | 6.95 | 53 | 54 |
| 3 | 71 | 0.24 | 0.14 | 393 | 270 | 4.01 | 6.67 | 5.89 | 7.39 | 51 | 52 |
| 4 | 65 | 0.52 | 0.22 | 448 | 270 | 3.23 | 5.53 | 5.68 | 7.91 | 59 | 58 |
| 5 | 63 | 0.22 | 0.12 | 354 | 272 | 4.47 | 5.67 | 5.65 | 7.32 | 50 | 51 |
| 6 | 70 | 0.62 | 0.24 | 640 | 311 | 3.97 | 4.34 | 5.65 | 5.85 | 54 | 53 |
| 7 | 68 | 0.54 | 0.26 | 483 | 283 | 3.83 | 5.79 | 5.34 | 8.81 | 56 | 53 |
| 8 | 74 | 0.64 | 0.32 | 458 | 318 | 3.32 | 3.98 | 5.21 | 6.15 | 58 | 60 |
| 9 | 73 | 0.52 | 0.18 | 424 | 246 | 4.86 | 4.82 | 5.06 | 6.24 | 50 | 52 |
| 10 | 76 | 0.72 | 0.38 | 575 | 350 | 3.78 | 4.44 | 4.83 | 5.83 | 57 | 55 |
| 11 | 68 | 0.42 | 0.24 | 320 | 243 | 2.17 | 2.76 | 4.52 | 5.85 | 55 | 56 |
| 12 | 61 | 0.48 | 0.12 | 393 | 279 | 2.32 | 3.31 | 4.47 | 8.85 | 56 | 51 |
| 13 | 69 | 0.78 | 0.34 | 653 | 298 | 2.22 | 2.86 | 4.26 | 5.24 | 48 | 50 |
| 14 | 66 | 0.68 | 0.32 | 616 | 321 | 2.28 | 3.46 | 4.14 | 5.22 | 57 | 55 |
| 15 | 74 | 0.64 | 0.26 | 559 | 343 | 2.13 | 4.74 | 4.12 | 8.03 | 54 | 54 |
| 16 | 74 | 0.48 | 0.34 | 425 | 308 | 2.19 | 2.96 | 4.12 | 5.62 | 53 | 52 |
| 17 | 74 | 0.52 | 0.32 | 524 | 350 | 2.17 | 4.01 | 4.04 | 5.92 | 62 | 58 |
| 18 | 74 | 0.62 | 0.36 | 679 | 344 | 2.11 | 3.04 | 3.91 | 4.12 | 54 | 57 |
| 19 | 80 | 0.52 | 0.26 | 485 | 378 | 1.75 | 2.86 | 2.98 | 5.61 | 60 | 55 |
| 20 | 68 | 0.56 | 0.22 | 580 | 288 | 1.02 | 3.17 | 2.93 | 6.07 | 54 | 52 |
| 21 | 67 | 0.58 | 0.34 | 447 | 388 | 1.07 | 2.98 | 2.92 | 4.32 | 46 | 51 |
| 22 | 84 | 0.72 | 0.42 | 594 | 354 | 1.18 | 2.08 | 2.58 | 4.41 | 67 | 59 |
| 23 | 75 | 0.78 | 0.54 | 668 | 392 | 1.28 | 1.85 | 2.44 | 3.51 | 59 | 60 |
| 24 | 82 | 0.64 | 0.48 | 589 | 386 | 1.46 | 1.98 | 2.16 | 3.94 | 62 | 58 |
| 25 | 81 | 0.68 | 0.36 | 587 | 368 | 1.15 | 2.04 | 1.96 | 3.41 | 68 | 59 |
| 26 | 63 | 0.52 | 0.32 | 580 | 351 | 1.48 | 1.78 | 1.94 | 4.49 | 66 | 58 |
| 27 | 75 | 0.84 | 0.36 | 488 | 266 | 1.34 | 2.72 | 2.02 | 4.34 | 64 | 60 |
| 28 | 63 | 0.74 | 0.32 | 512 | 382 | 1.22 | 1.77 | 1.98 | 4.28 | 66 | 60 |
| 29 | 74 | 0.68 | 0.52 | 456 | 272 | 1.08 | 1.24 | 2.04 | 2.69 | 55 | 50 |
| 30 | 73 | 0.76 | 0.46 | 487 | 226 | 1.43 | 1.65 | 1.87 | 2.63 | 50 | 47 |
| 31 | 72 | 0.86 | 0.54 | 524 | 313 | 1.02 | 1.85 | 1.67 | 2.29 | 63 | 59 |
| 32 | 70 | 0.64 | 0.28 | 402 | 293 | 1.86 | 2.47 | 2.04 | 4.94 | 58 | 57 |
Mean values and standard deviations in group of 32 eyes of patients before and 12 months after EMM surgery
| Trait | EMM surgery | Mean | SD |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| logMAR DBCVA | Before | 0.60 | 0.15 | <0.001* |
| After | 0.31 | 0.12 | ||
| Foveal thickness | Before | 509.03 | 93.88 | <0.001* |
| After | 313.34 | 47.01 | ||
| IT P50 | Before | 56.75 | 5.78 | <0.001* |
| After | 55.00 | 3.60 | ||
| A P50 | Before | 2.38 | 1.23 | <0.001* |
| After | 3.41 | 1.48 | ||
| A N95 | Before | 3.75 | 1.48 | <0.001* |
| After | 5.46 | 1.72 |
The differences between means were statistically significant in all cases
* Differences statistically significant
Fig. 1Scatter plots of preoperative DBCVA and preoperative PERG values in patients with EMM (a), and DBCVA 12 months after surgery and preoperative PERG values in patients with EMM (b). Significant correlations between preoperative and 12 months after surgery DBCVA versus preoperative PERG values were obtained
Fig. 2ROC curve for preoperative P 50 amplitude used as a prognostic factor for good postoperative DBCVA of 0.3 logMAR or less (0.5 or better Snellen). The cutoff point = 2.32 µV; specificity = 64.3 % sensitivity = 88.9 % and AUC = 0.81
Fig. 3ROC curve for preoperative N 95 amplitude used as a prognostic factor for good postoperative DBCVA of 0.3 logMAR or less (0.5 or better Snellen). The cutoff point = 4.47 µV; specificity = 71.4 %; sensitivity = 88.9 % and AUC = 0.86
Fig. 4ROC curve for preoperative DBCVA (logMAR scale) used as a prognostic factor for good postoperative DBCVA of 0.3 logMAR or less (0.5 or better Snellen). The cutoff point = 0.56; specificity = 83.3 %; sensitivity = 78.6 % and AUC = 0.87
Fig. 5A 65-year-old woman with initial VA of logMAR 0.52. (Table 1—patient 4). One year after surgery increase in amplitudes of P50- (from 3.23 to 5.63 µV)and N95-waves (from 5.68 to 7.91 µV) waves was associated with foveal thickness reduction and improvement of DBCVA to logMAR 0.22. Note before surgery, the amplitudes of P50- and N95-waves were higher than cutoff values for these waves obtained from ROC curve. 5B 63-year-old woman with initial VA of logMAR 0.64 (Table 1 patient 24). One year after surgery, small increase in amplitudes of P50- (from 1.46 to 1.98 µV) and N95-waves (from 2.16 to 3.94 µV) waves was associated with foveal thickness reduction and small improvement of DBCVA to logMAR 0.48. Note before surgery, the amplitudes of P50- and N95-waves were below than cutoff values for these waves obtained from ROC curve