| Literature DB >> 32199465 |
Chi-Chun Lai1,2, An-Lun Wu3,4, Hung-Da Chou3,5, Wee Min Teh3,6, Kuan-Jen Chen3,5, Yen-Po Chen3,5, Laura Liu3,5, Yih-Shiou Hwang3,5, Wei-Chi Wu3,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the feasibility of a surgical technique using a sub-perfluoro-n-octane (PFO) injection of ocular viscoelastic device (OVD) to stabilize inverted internal limiting membrane (ILM) flap for the treatment of macular hole retinal detachment (MHRD).Entities:
Keywords: Internal limiting membrane; Macular hole retinal detachment; Ocular viscoelastic device; Perfluoro-n-octane
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32199465 PMCID: PMC7085178 DOI: 10.1186/s12886-020-01393-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Ophthalmol ISSN: 1471-2415 Impact factor: 2.209
Fig. 1Sub-perfluoro-n-octane (PFO) injection of ocular viscoelastic device (OVD) technique in treating macular hole retinal detachment (MHRD). Cross-sectional schematic diagram (bottom) showing surgical steps corresponding to each photograph (top). a, b A small PFO bubble was introduced into the eye to protect the fovea, followed by an injection of indocyanine green (ICG) dye. c Excess ICG dye was removed and additional PFO was injected to fill the posterior pole. d The ILM peel was initiated by forceps under PFO tamponade about 4 disc diameters in size circumferentially, and multiple ILM layers were inverted to cover the MH. e Remaining ILM within the macula was intended to peel close to the vascular arcades. f A small amount of OVD was then injected under PFO to cover the ILM flap. g PFO was completely removed in the fluid phase. h Fluid–air exchange was performed, followed by injection of 15% C3F8
Demographics, Main Clinical Features at Baseline, and Surgical Outcomes for Macular Hole Retinal Detachment
| Patient No. | Age (Years) | Sex | Eye | Subtype of MHRDa | Axial length (mm) | MH size (μm) | Retinal attachment | MH closed | Final Lens Status | Preoperative BCVA | Final BCVA | Follow-up (month) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 60–70 | F | OS | Type 2 | 33.10 | 48 | Yes | Yes | Cataract | 20/400 | 20/400 | 6 |
| 2 | 50–60 | F | OD | Type 1 | 27.56 | 214 | Yes | Yes | Cataract | 20/2000 | 20/400 | 7 |
| 3 | 50–60 | F | OS | Type 2 | 29.05 | 105 | Yes | Yes | Pseudophakic | 20/1000 | 20/200 | 10 |
| 4 | 60–70 | F | OS | Type 1 | 27.52 | 153 | Yes | Yes | Pseudophakic | 20/2000 | 20/400 | 11 |
| 5 | 70–80 | M | OS | Type 1 | 30.50 | 28 | Yes | Yes | Pseudophakic | 20/400 | 20/200 | 12 |
| 6 | 60–70 | M | OS | Type 1 | 28.58 | 114 | Yes | Yes | Pseudophakic | 20/100 | 20/50 | 12 |
| 7 | 50–60 | M | OD | Type 2 | 30.81 | NAb | Yes | Yes | Pseudophakic | 20/2000 | 20/50 | 7 |
| 8 | 50–60 | F | OS | Type 2 | 31.86 | NAb | Yes | Yes | Cataract | 20/2000 | 20/400 | 7 |
BCVA Best-corrected visual acuity, MH Macular hole, NA Not applicable, RD Retinal detachment
a Type 1 indicated RD confined to the macula (within the boundaries of the superior and inferior temporal arcade vessels), and type 2 indicated RD beyond the macula
b No clear OCT images could be obtained preoperatively for measurements
Fig. 2Preoperative OCT images in 6 of the 8 cases. a–f correspond to patients 1–6. We were unable to take the OCT scans for patient 7 and 8
Fig. 3OCT images in the last visit of the 8 cases was shown. a–h correspond to patients 1–8, and 5 eyes had near-normal foveal contour (b, c, e, f, and g). a Patient 1 had a steep foveal contour. b In patient 2, minimal residual subretinal fluid was noted. d Irregular foveal contour was noted in patient 4. f In patient 6, multiple-layer ILM flap was not directly on the top of fovea but located at the parafoveal area (arrow). h In patient 8, ILM plug appeared to reside within the fovea; the star indicating the ILM plug