PURPOSE: To compare anatomical and functional results between internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling and non-ILM peeling in macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD). METHODS: We completed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) due to macula-off RRD. ILM peeling (P) versus non-ILM peeling (NP) groups were compared regarding best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), anatomical success, endotamponade, concomitant scleral band placement and BCVA gain for epiretinal membranes (ERM) resubjected to PPV. Statistical significance was considered when p < 0.05. RESULTS: PPV was conducted in 352 patients, among which 43.5% (n = 153) were in the P group and 55.6% (n = 196) were in the NP group. Both groups had significant BCVA improvement during the study period (p < 0.001), but with no significant difference between them. Anatomical success was similar between P (84.2%) and NP (87.2%) groups. No difference was found with regard to endotamponade (p = 0.07) or concomitant scleral band placement (p = 0.43). The NP group developed subsequent ERM more frequently (p = 0.004), but BCVA gains for eyes requiring repeat PPV for ERM were not found (p = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Although ERM formation and greater anatomical success are reasons to support the use of ILM peeling in RRD, we did not observe any anatomical or functional difference regarding ILM peeling or functional gain with secondary ERM peeling.
PURPOSE: To compare anatomical and functional results between internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling and non-ILM peeling in macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD). METHODS: We completed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) due to macula-off RRD. ILM peeling (P) versus non-ILM peeling (NP) groups were compared regarding best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), anatomical success, endotamponade, concomitant scleral band placement and BCVA gain for epiretinal membranes (ERM) resubjected to PPV. Statistical significance was considered when p < 0.05. RESULTS:PPV was conducted in 352 patients, among which 43.5% (n = 153) were in the P group and 55.6% (n = 196) were in the NP group. Both groups had significant BCVA improvement during the study period (p < 0.001), but with no significant difference between them. Anatomical success was similar between P (84.2%) and NP (87.2%) groups. No difference was found with regard to endotamponade (p = 0.07) or concomitant scleral band placement (p = 0.43). The NP group developed subsequent ERM more frequently (p = 0.004), but BCVA gains for eyes requiring repeat PPV for ERM were not found (p = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Although ERM formation and greater anatomical success are reasons to support the use of ILM peeling in RRD, we did not observe any anatomical or functional difference regarding ILM peeling or functional gain with secondary ERM peeling.
Entities:
Keywords:
Epiretinal membrane; Internal limiting membrane; Macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachments; Pars plana vitrectomy; Peeling