| Literature DB >> 31907015 |
Prithvi Ramtohul1, Eric Parrat2, Danièle Denis3, Umberto Lorenzi4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare the anatomical and functional outcomes of the inverted internal limiting membrane (ILM) flap technique and the complete ILM removal in the treatment of large stage 4 macular hole (MH) > 400 μm and to evaluate reconstructive anatomical changes in foveal microstructure using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography.Entities:
Keywords: ILM peeling; Internal limiting membrane; Inverted ILM flap technique; Macular hole; Vitrectomy
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31907015 PMCID: PMC6945482 DOI: 10.1186/s12886-019-1294-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Ophthalmol ISSN: 1471-2415 Impact factor: 2.209
Patient characteristics. Group 1: ILM Removal Group and Group 2: Inverted ILM flap Group
| Patient no. | Age range | Eye | Preoperative lens status | MH diameter (μm) | Operative procedure | Tamponade | Preoperative BCVA (decimal) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group 1 | |||||||
| 1 | 70–74 | R | IOL | 598 | PPV, PL | C2F6 | 0.2 |
| | 75–79 | R | IOL | 652 | PPV, PL | C2F6 | 0.01 |
| 3 | 75–79 | L | IOL | 479 | PPV, PL | C2F6 | 0.2 |
| 4 | 60–64 | R | Phake | 753 | PPV, PL, PEA, IOL | C2F6 | 0.1 |
| 5 | 75–79 | R | IOL | 451 | PPV, PL | C2F6 | 0.1 |
| 6 | 65–69 | L | IOL | 505 | PPV, PL | C2F6 | 0.2 |
| 7 | 55–59 | L | IOL | 697 | PPV, PL | C2F6 | 0.05 |
| 8 | 60–64 | R | IOL | 500 | PPV, PL | C2F6 | 0.2 |
| 9 | 65–69 | L | Phake | 1028 | PPV, PL, PEA, IOL | C2F6 | 0.05 |
| 10 | 70–74 | R | Phake | 479 | PPV, PL, PEA, IOL | C2F6 | 0.15 |
| 11 | 65–69 | L | Phake | 401 | PPV, PL, PEA, IOL | C2F6 | 0.2 |
| 12 | 70–74 | R | IOL | 603 | PPV, PL | C2F6 | 0.1 |
| 13 | 60–64 | R | IOL | 401 | PPV, PL | C2F6 | 0.05 |
| 14 | 70–74 | L | IOL | 654 | PPV, PL | C2F6 | 0.2 |
| 15 | 75–79 | L | IOL | 400 | PPV, PL | C2F6 | 0.1 |
| 16 | 50–54 | R | Phake | 879 | PPV, PL, PEA, IOL | C2F6 | 0.05 |
| 17 | 60–64 | R | IOL | 695 | PPV, PL | C2F6 | 0.05 |
| 18 | 65–69 | R | IOL | 450 | PPV, PL | C2F6 | 0.05 |
| 19 | 60–64 | L | IOL | 508 | PPV, PL | C2F6 | 0.1 |
| 20 | 70–74 | R | IOL | 400 | PPV, PL | C2F6 | 0.15 |
| 21 | 65–69 | R | Phake | 400 | PPV, PL, PEA, IOL | C2F6 | 0.1 |
| 22 | 65–69 | R | IOL | 650 | PPV, PL | C2F6 | 0.05 |
| 23 | 60–64 | R | Phake | 621 | PPV, PL, PEA, IOL | C2F6 | 0.1 |
| Group 2 | |||||||
| 1 | 65–69 | L | IOL | 426 | PPV, ILM | C2F6 | 0.12 |
| 2 | 70–74 | L | IOL | 432 | PPV, ILM | C2F6 | 0.3 |
| 3 | 65–69 | R | Phake | 502 | PPV, ILM, PEA, IOL | C2F6 | 0.16 |
| 4 | 65–69 | R | IOL | 571 | PPV, ILM | C2F6 | 0.1 |
| 5 | 65–69 | R | IOL | 575 | PPV, ILM | C2F6 | 0.08 |
| 6 | 70–74 | L | IOL | 573 | PPV, ILM | C2F6 | 0.1 |
| 7 | 75–79 | R | Phake | 593 | PPV, ILM, PEA, IOL | C2F6 | 0.16 |
| 8 | 65–69 | L | IOL | 640 | PPV, ILM | C2F6 | 0.04 |
| 9 | 70–74 | R | IOL | 642 | PPV, ILM | C2F6 | 0.16 |
| 10 | 60–64 | R | IOL | 694 | PPV, ILM | C2F6 | 0.08 |
| 11 | 65–69 | L | IOL | 699 | PPV, ILM | C2F6 | 0.08 |
| 12 | 60–64 | L | Phake | 691 | PPV, ILM, PEA, IOL | C2F6 | 0.04 |
| 13 | 65–69 | R | Phake | 739 | PPV, ILM, PEA, IOL | C2F6 | 0.08 |
| 14 | 45–49 | L | IOL | 746 | PPV, ILM | C2F6 | 0.16 |
| 15 | 75–79 | L | Phake | 798 | PPV, ILM, PEA, IOL | C2F6 | 0.1 |
| 16 | 60–64 | R | IOL | 792 | PPV, ILM | C2F6 | 0.16 |
| 17 | 75–79 | L | IOL | 833 | PPV, ILM | C2F6 | 0.16 |
| 18 | 70–74 | R | IOL | 891 | PPV, ILM | C2F6 | 0.1 |
| 19 | 40–44 | L | IOL | 1159 | PPV, ILM | C2F6 | 0.1 |
| 20 | 55–59 | R | Phake | 674 | PPV, ILM, PEA, IOL | C2F6 | 0.05 |
| 21 | 75–79 | R | IOL | 721 | PPV, ILM | C2F6 | 0.1 |
| 22 | 55–59 | R | IOL | 438 | PPV, ILM | C2F6 | 0.25 |
| 23 | 65–69 | R | IOL | 524 | PPV, ILM | C2F6 | 0.1 |
Abbreviations: BCVA best-corrected visual acuity, C2F8 hexafluoroethane, ILM Inverted ILM flap, IOL intraocular lens, LogMAR logarithm of minimum angle of resolution, MH macular hole, PEA phacoemulsification, PPV pars plana vitrectomy
Comparison of preoperative study participant data
| Characteristics | Group 1 (ILM Removal) | Group 2 (Inverted ILM Flap) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| No. of eyes | 23 | 23 | |
| Age (years; mean ± SD) | 65.69 ± 10.25 | 68.03 ± 9.50 | 0.14 |
| Gender (male/female) | 16 (69%)/ 7 (31%) | 13 (56%) / 10 (44%) | 0.37 |
| Duration of symptoms (weeks; mean ± SD) | 13.2 ± 3.6 | 12.5 ± 4.1 | 0.54 |
| Preoperative lens status, | |||
| Phakic | 7 (30%) | 6 (26%) | 0.75 |
| Pseudophakic | 16 (70%) | 17 (74%) | 0.75 |
| Preoperative BCVA (LogMAR; mean ± SD) | 1.04 ± 0.32 | 0.98 ± 0.22 | 0.48 |
| MH diameter (μm; mean ± SD) | 574.09 ± 164.68 | 657.33 ± 172.36 | 0.09 |
| Type | |||
| Idiopathic | 17 | 16 | 0.75 |
| Myopic | 3 | 5 | 0.44 |
| Traumatic | 3 | 2 | 0.64 |
Abbreviations: BCVA best-corrected visual acuity, LogMAR logarithm of minimum angle of resolution, MH macular hole
Comparison of postoperative study participant data
| Characteristics | Group 1 (ILM Removal) | Group 2 (Inverted ILM Flap) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Postoperative BCVA (LogMAR; mean ± SD) | |||
| 1 month | 0.77 ± 0.31 | 0.74 ± 0.25 | 0.73 |
| 3 months | 0.67 ± 0.33 | 0.67 ± 0.26 | 0.95 |
| 6 months | 0.70 ± 0.31 | 0.45 ± 0.25 | 0.005 |
| Improvement in BCVA | −0.35 ± 0.33 | −0.54 ± 0.25 | 0.03 |
| Primary MH closure rate | 70% (16/23) | 91% (21/23) | 0.67 |
| `Additional surgery | 3 (No surgical success) | 1 (One surgical success) | 0.30 |
| Final MH closure rate | 70% (16/23) | 96% (22/23) | 0.02 |
Abbreviations BCVA best-corrected visual acuity, LogMAR logarithm of minimum angle of resolution, MH macular hole
Photoreceptor restoration during the follow-up period
| ELM (+) | EZ (+) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Month, n (%) | 3 Months, n (%) | 6 Months, n (%) | 1 Month, n (%) | 3 Months, n (%) | 6 Months, n (%) | |
| Group 1 (ILM Removal) | 0 (0%) | 2 (9%) | 4 (17%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4%) | 2 (9%) |
| Group 2 (Inverted ILM Flap) | 2 (9%) | 12 (52%) | 15 (65%) | 1 (4%) | 5 (21%) | 12 (52%) |
Abbreviations: ELM (+) Restoration of the external limiting membrane, EZ (+) Restoration of the ellipsoid zone, ILM Internal limiting membrane
Fig. 1A 61-year-old man presented with idiopathic large MH. a. Fundus photography before surgery. b. Baseline SD-OCT. The minimum diameter was 640 μm. Preoperative BCVA was 0.04. c. SD-OCT at 1 month postoperatively. Inverted ILM flap technique was performed, with a W-shape closure (irregular closure) of the MH. SD-OCT showed the foveal hyperreflective tissue corresponding to a coiling of the flap. Disruption of the EZ (between red arrowheads) remained. The ELM line was almost complete. BCVA was 0.16. d. Six months after surgery, SD-OCT showed a persistent W-shape closure of the MH with a wrapped flap. There was a complete restoration of the ELM and EZ lines. The BCVA increased to 0.5