Esat Yetkin1, Mehmet Citirik2, Mehmet Yasin Teke2, Hasan Kiziltoprak2. 1. Ankara Ulucanlar Eye Education and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Ulucanlar Cd. No: 59, 06230, Altindag, Ankara, Turkey. av3sta21@gmail.com. 2. Ankara Ulucanlar Eye Education and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Ulucanlar Cd. No: 59, 06230, Altindag, Ankara, Turkey.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcome of postoperative eccentric macular hole (ECMH) after epiretinal membrane (ERM), macular hole (MH), and idiopathic vitreomacular traction (VMT) surgery and discuss the underlying possible mechanisms. METHODS: A retrospective study was carried out for 711 eyes of 711 consecutive patients who underwent 25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with ERM (396 eyes), MH (268 eyes), and VMT (47 eyes) surgery between 2010 and 2016. Mean follow-up time was 19 months. RESULTS: Eight patients developed ECMH (1.12%). Four of the patients were ERM, three patients were idiopathic full thickness MH, and one patient was ERM and lamellar pseudohole. There was no ECMH in patients with VMT. The average time of hole formation after vitrectomy was 7.25 weeks with a range from 2 to 15 weeks. Three patients developed 2 ECMH, and others had 1 ECMH. The location of the ECMH was mostly in the temporal of fovea. All patients were asymptomatic. No retinal detachment or choroidal neovascularization occurred in any patient and no additional intervention was attempted in the postoperative period in any case. CONCLUSION: Postoperative ECMH may be seen after vitreomacular interface surgery. They are mostly asymptomatic, usually do not require additional intervention and often located in the parafoveal area. ILM peeling-induced muller cell damage, residual ILM contraction, and iatrogenic trauma may play a role as the underlying cause in our case series.
PURPOSE: To assess the incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcome of postoperative eccentric macular hole (ECMH) after epiretinal membrane (ERM), macular hole (MH), and idiopathic vitreomacular traction (VMT) surgery and discuss the underlying possible mechanisms. METHODS: A retrospective study was carried out for 711 eyes of 711 consecutive patients who underwent 25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with ERM (396 eyes), MH (268 eyes), and VMT (47 eyes) surgery between 2010 and 2016. Mean follow-up time was 19 months. RESULTS: Eight patients developed ECMH (1.12%). Four of the patients were ERM, three patients were idiopathic full thickness MH, and one patient was ERM and lamellar pseudohole. There was no ECMH in patients with VMT. The average time of hole formation after vitrectomy was 7.25 weeks with a range from 2 to 15 weeks. Three patients developed 2 ECMH, and others had 1 ECMH. The location of the ECMH was mostly in the temporal of fovea. All patients were asymptomatic. No retinal detachment or choroidal neovascularization occurred in any patient and no additional intervention was attempted in the postoperative period in any case. CONCLUSION: Postoperative ECMH may be seen after vitreomacular interface surgery. They are mostly asymptomatic, usually do not require additional intervention and often located in the parafoveal area. ILM peeling-induced muller cell damage, residual ILM contraction, and iatrogenic trauma may play a role as the underlying cause in our case series.