| Literature DB >> 32982149 |
Nadyr A Damasceno1,2, Eduardo F Damasceno1,3, Nicolas A Yannuzzi1, Ashley M Crane1, Nidhi Relhan1, William E Smiddy1, Harry W Flynn1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report both the unoperated clinical course and the surgical outcomes of eyes with a central foveal bouquet (CB) secondary to idiopathic epiretinal membranes (iERMs).Entities:
Keywords: foveal tractional lesions; idiopathic epiretinal membrane lesions; central foveal bouquet; clinical outcomes; surgical outcomes
Year: 2020 PMID: 32982149 PMCID: PMC7493214 DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S254544
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Ophthalmol ISSN: 1177-5467
Figure 2Group II (A – baseline, B – last clinical examination after surgery).
Notes: Man, 79 years old with iERM and subfoveal detachment was observed clinically. After PPV and ERM peel, the CB sign resolved. The BCVA Improved from IogMAR 0.18 (20/30 by Snellen Equivalent) to logMAR 0.10 (20/25 by Snellen Equivalent). Metamorphopsia complaints disappeared after 4 months post-PPV surgery.
Figure 1Group I (A – baseline, B – latest follow-up data).
Notes: Woman, 65 years with iERM and Cotton Ball Sign. (A) Previous PPV Surgery. (B) Post PPV Surgery after 4 months. The BCVA improved from logMAR 0.25 (20/30 by Snellen Equivalent) to logMAR 0.15 (20/25 by Snellen Equivalent).
Figure 3Previous and after PPV + ERM peel surgery. An 81-year-old man with iERM and acquired vtelliforme lesion underwent PPV/MP. At last clinical examination, the CB sign resolved. Metamorphopsia complaints disappeared. The BCVA improved from logMAR 0.30 (20/40 by Snellen Equivalent) to logMAR 0.18 (20/30 by Snellen Equivalent).
BCVA, iERM Characteristics and Symptoms: VA and CMT Changes, CB Spontaneous Resolution and CB Disappearance After iERM Removing. Distributions of Groups II and I
| Group I: Non-Surgical Cases (n = 21) | Group II: Surgical Cases (n = 25) | p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Metamorphopsia | Present | 13 [61.9] | 22 [88] | 0.04# |
| Absent | 8 [38] | 3 [12] | ||
| BCVA – logmar (mean ± SD) Snellen Equivalent | Baseline | 0.19 ± 0.17 20/30 | 0.31 ± 0.33 20/40 | 0.04* |
| Latest | 0.24 ± 018 20/30 | 0.15 ± 0.21 20/30 | ||
| Visual acuity (VA) changes from baseline | VA gain (≥ 2 lines) | 5 [23.8] | 5 [20] | 0.67§ |
| VA stable (± 1 lines) | 15 [71.5] | 17 [68] | ||
| VA loss (≥ 2 lines) | 1 [4.7] | 3 [12] | ||
| Central acular thickness (CMT) in micrometers (µm) | Baseline (mean ± SD) | 422 ± 84.2 | 531 ± 143.9 | 0.06* |
| Latest (mean ± SD) | 400 ± 40.8 | 454 ± 148.7 | ||
| Central macular thickness (CMT) change from baseline | Improved (< 30 µm) | 2 [9.5] | 11 [44] | 0.03§ |
| Stable (± 30 µm) | 15 [71.5] | 11 [44] | ||
| Worsened (> 30 µm) | 4 [19.0] | 3 [12] | ||
| CB | 1st year follow-up | 1 [4.8] | 15 [62.5] | 0.0001§ |
| 2nd year follow-up | 4 [19] | 9 [37.5] | ||
| No resolution | 16 [76.2] | 1 [4.0] | ||
| Follow-up time (months) | 16.3 ± 13.2 | 5.6 ± 2.8 | 0.76 | |
Notes: n – Eyes on the data collection, % – percentage, SD – standard deviation, p – statistical significance, #Chi-square (Fisher) test, *Student’s t statistical test, §Kruskal–Wallis test.
Figure 4(A) 6×6 mm SS-OCTA En face structure showing ERM and (B) scan showing bouquet.