| Literature DB >> 31275628 |
Maurizio Mete1, Alessandro Alfano1, Emilia Maggio1, Massimo Guerriero2, Grazia Pertile1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the microstructural changes after successful myopic macular hole (MMH) surgery, comparing inverted ILM flap and complete ILM removal techniques, and their association with visual function.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31275628 PMCID: PMC6589202 DOI: 10.1155/2019/1314989
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ophthalmol ISSN: 2090-004X Impact factor: 1.909
Baseline demographics factors for patients affected by myopic macular hole (MMH).
| Inverted ILM flap ( | ILM peeling ( |
| Total ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender (M : F) | 7 : 20 | 3 : 10 | — | 10 : 30 |
| Age (years), mean (SD) | 57.8 (10.0) | 62.9 (13.3) | 0.1179 | 59.5 (11.3) |
| Eye (right-left) | 14 : 13 | 6 : 7 | — | 20 : 20 |
| BCVA baseline decimal, mean (SD) | 0.24 (0.11) | 0.28 (0.13) | 0.1644 | 0.25 (0.12) |
| Axial length (mm), mean (SD) | 29.3 (2.9) | 31.0 (3.0) | 0.1340 | 29.7 (3.0) |
| MMH minimum diameter in | 440 (191) | 368 | 0.1258 | 416 (188) |
| Lens | ||||
| Aphakic | 1 (4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.5%) | |
| Pseudophakic before Vx | 11 (41%) | 9 (69%) | 20 (50%) | |
| Phacoemulsification during Vx | 9 (33%) | 3 (23%) | 12 (30%) | |
| Phacoemulsification after Vx | 1 (4%) | 1 (8%) | 2 (5%) | |
| Cataract | 5 (18%) | 0 (0%) | 5 (12.5%) | |
Eyes demonstrating complete restoration of external limiting membrane (ELM) and ellipsoid zone (EZ) integrity at different time points.
| 1 month | 3 months | 6 months | 1 year | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whole sample ( | ||||
| ELM, | 16 (40) | 23 (59) | 28 (72) | 28 (72) |
| EZ, | 6 (15) | 14 (36) | 21 (54) | 24 (62) |
| Inverted flap ( | ||||
| ELM, | 11 (41) | 16 (62) | 18 (69) | 18 (69) |
| EZ, | 3 (11) | 10 (38) | 15 (58) | 16 (62) |
| ILM peeling ( | ||||
| ELM, | 5 (39) | 7 (54) | 10 (77) | 10 (77) |
| EZ, | 3 (23) | 4 (31) | 6 (46) | 8 (62) |
| ELM | 0.4519 | 0.3147 | 0.2996 | 0.2996 |
| EZ | 0.1591 | 0.3326 | 0.2378 | 0.5000 |
Figure 1External limiting membrane (ELM) (a) and ellipsoid zone (EZ) (b) recovery rate during the follow-up in both inverted flap and peeling group. No statistically significant differences were found between the two surgical techniques at any time points.
Figure 2Association between best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and external limiting membrane (ELM) and ellipsoid zone (EZ) recovery during the follow-up in the whole sample. Regardless of the surgical technique, a statistically significant positive association between BCVA and ELM/EZ restoration was found at each time point. In Table 2, the number of cases with ELM and EZ recovery is shown for each time point. Asterisks indicate a statistically significant difference between the two contiguous points (p < 0.05). ELM− EZ− = neither ELM nor EZ recovery; ELM+ EZ− = ELM recovery; ELM+ EZ+ = ELM and EZ recovery.
Figure 3Follow-up of 2 cases of myopic macular holes (MMHs), namely, operated on using inverted internal limiting membrane (ILM) flap technique (a–e) and with complete ILM removal (f–j). Regardless of the surgical technique, ELM and EZ recovered progressively, even if ELM recovered first. In the inverted ILM flap case, a progressive reabsorption of the ILM plug was also noticed. (a, f) Preoperative. (b, g) 1 month after surgery. (c, h) 3 months after surgery. (d, i) 6 months after surgery. (e, j) 12 months after surgery.