Won Seok Choi1, Daniel J Merlau2, Stanley Chang1. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Columbia University, New York, New York. 2. College of Arts and Sciences, Columbia University, New York, New York.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the surgical outcome of a lamellar macular hole (LMH) depending on lamellar hole-associated epiretinal proliferation (LHEP) and full-thickness macular hole. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review. Thirty-three patients were enrolled for this study. The patients were divided into three groups depending on the type of macular hole and presence of LHEP. Group 1 had epiretinal membranes with LMH without LHEP, Group 2 had LMH with LHEP, and Group 3 had full-thickness macular hole with LHEP. The best-corrected visual acuity was recorded and optical coherence tomography scans were obtained. RESULTS: Preoperative best-corrected visual acuity showed no significant difference between groups (P = 0.968). Final visual acuity of Group 1 was better than that of Group 2 (P = 0.009). Group 1 showed less postoperative ellipsoid zone disruption compared with Group 2 (P = 0.010), and the duration of LHEP to surgery had no significant correlation with postoperative visual acuity (P = 0.629). CONCLUSION: Lamellar macular hole with LHEP showed poorer visual outcomes compared with those with highly reflective epiretinal membranes. Lamellar macular hole with LHEP showed a greater chance of ellipsoid zone disruption. These findings may explain the wide variability of visual outcomes previously reported after vitrectomy for LMH.
PURPOSE: To compare the surgical outcome of a lamellar macular hole (LMH) depending on lamellar hole-associated epiretinal proliferation (LHEP) and full-thickness macular hole. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review. Thirty-three patients were enrolled for this study. The patients were divided into three groups depending on the type of macular hole and presence of LHEP. Group 1 had epiretinal membranes with LMH without LHEP, Group 2 had LMH with LHEP, and Group 3 had full-thickness macular hole with LHEP. The best-corrected visual acuity was recorded and optical coherence tomography scans were obtained. RESULTS: Preoperative best-corrected visual acuity showed no significant difference between groups (P = 0.968). Final visual acuity of Group 1 was better than that of Group 2 (P = 0.009). Group 1 showed less postoperative ellipsoid zone disruption compared with Group 2 (P = 0.010), and the duration of LHEP to surgery had no significant correlation with postoperative visual acuity (P = 0.629). CONCLUSION: Lamellar macular hole with LHEP showed poorer visual outcomes compared with those with highly reflective epiretinal membranes. Lamellar macular hole with LHEP showed a greater chance of ellipsoid zone disruption. These findings may explain the wide variability of visual outcomes previously reported after vitrectomy for LMH.
Authors: Esther Lee Kim; Adam J Weiner; Cindy Ung; Miin Roh; Jay Wang; Ivan J Lee; Natalie T Huang; Maxwell Stem; Mohammad Dahrouj; Dean Eliott; Demetrios G Vavvas; Lucy H Y Young; George A Williams; Bruce R Garretson; Ivana K Kim; Tarek S Hassan; Shizuo Mukai; Alan J Ruby; Lisa J Faia; Antonio Capone; Jason Comander; Leo A Kim; David M Wu; Kimberly A Drenser; Maria A Woodward; Jeremy D Wolfe; Yoshihiro Yonekawa Journal: Ophthalmol Retina Date: 2019-04-01
Authors: Marco Coassin; Valentina Mastrofilippo; Jay M Stewart; Andrea Fanti; Matteo Belpoliti; Luca Cimino; Alfonso Iovieno; Luigi Fontana Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2018-05-21 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Andreas Bringmann; Jan Darius Unterlauft; Renate Wiedemann; Thomas Barth; Matus Rehak; Peter Wiedemann Journal: Int Ophthalmol Date: 2021-01-12 Impact factor: 2.031