| Literature DB >> 27911448 |
H Sasaki1, A Shiono1, J Kogo1, R Yomoda1, Y Munemasa1, M Syoda1, H Otake1, H Kurihara1, Y Kitaoka1, H Takagi1.
Abstract
PurposeTo determine whether the inverted internal limiting membrane (ILM) flap technique contributes to high reattachment and closure rates in patients with macular hole-associated retinal detachment (MHRD).Patients and methodsIn all, 15 eyes of 15 patients with MHRD undergoing 25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy with the inverted ILM flap technique or ILM peeling. The patients were divided into the inverted ILM flap technique group (6 eyes) and ILM peeling group (9 eyes). The logarithm of minimal angle of resolution best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and retinal attachment and macular hole closure rates were compared between the two groups before and after surgery.ResultsNo significant differences were found in the pre- and postoperative BCVA at 1 and 3 months after surgery in either group (inverted ILM flap technique group, preoperatively 1.04±0.55, 1 month 0.95±0.30, 3 months 0.83±0.22; ILM peeling group, preoperatively 1.00±0.44, 1 month 1.05±0.38, 3 months 1.06±0.49; P>0.05, respectively). The postoperative BCVA at 6 months after surgery was significantly better in the inverted ILM flap technique group than in the ILM peeling group (inverted ILM flap technique group, 0.62±0.35; ILM peeling group, 1.02±0.41, P=0.045). The improvement in BCVA was significantly better in the inverted ILM flap technique group than in the ILM peeling group (inverted ILM flap technique group, -0.41±0.29; ILM peeling group, 0.02±0.36; P=0.021). The primary macular hole closure rates were 100% in the inverted ILM flap technique group and 55.5% in the ILM peeling group. The primary reattachment rates were 100% in the inverted ILM flap technique group and 55.5% in the ILM peeling group. The primary macular hole closure and reattachment rates were not significantly different in both groups (P=0.056, respectively).ConclusionThe inverted ILM flap technique is a useful procedure for MHRD in highly myopic eyes.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27911448 PMCID: PMC5395991 DOI: 10.1038/eye.2016.263
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eye (Lond) ISSN: 0950-222X Impact factor: 3.775
Patient characteristics
| 1 | 78 | F | R | 28 | Phakic | 27.14 | PPV, PEA, IOL | − | C3F8 | 0.09 |
| 2 | 71 | F | R | 16 | IOL | 27.24 | PPV | + | SF6 | 0.02 |
| 3 | 77 | F | R | 24 | IOL | 28.49 | PPV | − | SF6 | 0.02 |
| 4 | 50 | F | L | 8 | IOL | 31.22 | PPV | − | C3F8 | 0.5 |
| 5 | 74 | F | L | 2 | Phakic | 28.72 | PPV, PEA, IOL | − | C3F8 | 0.04 |
| 6 | 77 | F | R | 4 | Phakic | 31.61 | PPV, PEA, IOL | + | C3F8 | 0.03 |
| 7 | 82 | F | R | 4 | IOL | 28.34 | PPV | + | SF6 | 0.3 |
| 8 | 64 | M | R | 4 | Phakic | 29.74 | PPV | + | SF6 | 0.5 |
| 9 | 68 | M | R | 2 | IOL | 31.14 | PPV | − | C3F8 | 0.05 |
| 10 | 74 | F | L | 16 | IOL | 29.14 | PPV | − | C3F8 | 0.09 |
| 11 | 73 | F | R | 48 | IOL | 31.4 | PPV | − | C3F8 | 0.3 |
| 12 | 46 | F | R | 6 | IOL | 30.06 | PPV | − | C3F8 | 0.2 |
| 13 | 79 | F | L | 1 | IOL | 34.37 | PPV | + | SF6 | 0.06 |
| 14 | 54 | M | R | 4 | Phakic | 33.63 | PPV, PEA, IOL | − | SF6 | 0.1 |
| 15 | 77 | F | L | 12 | IOL | 31.56 | PPV | + | C3F8 | 0.1 |
Abbreviations: BCVA, best-corrected visual acuity; C3F8, perfluoropropane; F, female; ILM, internal limiting membrane; IOL, intraocular lens; M, male; PPV, pars plana vitrectomy; PEA, phacoemulsification; SF6, sulfur hexafluoride.
Comparison of preoperative study participant data (group 1=inverted ILM flap technique; group 2=ILM peeling)
| P- | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| No. of patients | 6 | 9 | |
| Age (years; mean±SD) | 75.0±6.4 | 66.0±12.5 | 0.125 |
| Gender (male/female) | 1/5 | 2/7 | |
| Duration of symptoms (week; mean±SD) | 6.8±5.8 | 11.3±9.5 | 0.376 |
| Phakic | 2 | 3 | |
| Pseudophakic | 4 | 6 | |
| Preoperative RD status (within the archades/beyond the archades) | 1/5 | 3/6 | |
| Axial length (mm; mean±SD) | 30.47±2.57 | 30.10±1.95 | 0.637 |
| C3F8 | 1 | 6 | |
| SF6 | 5 | ||
| Preoperative BCVA (logMAR; mean±SD) | 1.04±0.55 | 1.00±0.44 | 0.906 |
Abbreviations: BCVA, best-corrected visual acuity; C3F8, perfluoropropane; ILM, internal limiting membrane; logMAR, logarithm of minimum angle of resolution; RD, retinal detachment; SF6, sulfur hexafluoride.
Figure 1(a) A 64-year-old man presented with MHRD. OCT demonstrated a macular hole and retinal detachment within the arcade (top left). The initial BCVA was 20/40. Using primary 25-gauge PPV with the inverted ILM flap technique, the ILM was inverted. Six months after surgery, the retina was reattached and the macular hole closed (bottom left). Postoperative BCVA was 20/40. (b) A 71-year-old woman presented with MHRD. OCT demonstrated a macular hole and retinal detachment beyond the arcade (top right). The initial BCVA was 4/200. Using primary 25-gauge PPV with the inverted ILM flap technique, the ILM was inverted. One month after surgery, the retina was reattached and the macular hole closed (bottom right). Postoperative BCVA improved to 16/200.
Comparison of postoperative study participant data (group 1=inverted ILM flap technique; group 2=ILM peeling)
| P | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 month | 0.95±0.30 | 1.05±0.38 | 0.68 |
| 3 months | 0.83±0.22 | 1.06±0.49 | 0.238 |
| 6 months | 0.62±0.35 | 1.02±0.41 | 0.045 |
| Improvement in BCVA | –0.41±0.29 | 0.02±0.36 | 0.021 |
| Primary MH closure rate | 100% (6/6) | 55.5% (5/9) | 0.056 |
| Final MH closure rate | 100% (6/6) | 88.8% (8/9) | 0.398 |
| Primary retinal reattachment rate | 100% (6/6) | 55.5% (5/9) | 0.056 |
| Final reattachment rate | 100% (6/6) | 88.8% (8/9) | 0.398 |
Abbreviations: BCVA, best-corrected visual acuity; ILM, internal limiting membrane; logMAR, logarithm of minimum angle of resolution MH, macular hole.