| Literature DB >> 33815600 |
Ioana Stella Patoni Popescu1, Ovidiu Mușat2, Simona Stanca3, Corina Cristina Coman Cernat1, Cristina Patoni4, Serban Negru5, Adrian Teodoru6, Horia Feier7, Ciprian Danielescu8.
Abstract
Currently, surgical techniques, such as internal limiting membrane peeling, are used widely for macular holes, macular puckers, epiretinal membranes, diabetic macular edema, retinal detachment, retinal vein occlusions, vitreomacular traction, optic pit maculopathy, and Terson syndrome. This study aimed to highlight any differences regarding visual acuity and ocular tomography coherence changes after staining the internal limiting membrane with dilutions of Brilliant Blue G vs. lutein/zeaxanthin-based dyes. This study involved 30 eyes of 30 patients who had undergone posterior pole vitrectomy for idiopathic stage 4 macular hole. The study lot was divided in two subgroups, 15 eyes colored with Brilliant Blue and the other 15 eyes colored with lutein and zeaxanthin dyes. The association between visual prognosis, ocular tomography coherence changes and intraocular pressure was analyzed. The surgical treatment with required endoillumination levels and a 2-min period of dye using the Alcon Constellation Vision System had no negative impact on cell viability and improved visual acuity by 30%. Staining makes it easier to remove, to be quick and precise while performing macular surgeries. In has been observed that lutein and zeaxanthin dyes offer an intraoperative protective screen that protects photoreceptors more than Brilliant Blue while performing pars plana vitrectomy. Both study groups had good results in time. Surgical visualization is an evolving technology. Copyright: © Popescu et al.Entities:
Keywords: Brilliant Blue G; cromovitrectomy; internal limiting membrane; intraocular dyes; lutein and zeaxanthin dyes; macular hole; pars plana vitrectomy; staining technique
Year: 2021 PMID: 33815600 PMCID: PMC8014885 DOI: 10.3892/etm.2021.9959
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Exp Ther Med ISSN: 1792-0981 Impact factor: 2.447
Patient inclusion and exclusion criteria.
| Inclusion criteria | Exclusion criteria |
|---|---|
| Patients enrolled at the Department of Ophthalmology, | Significant epiretinal membrane |
| ‘Dr. Carol Davila’ Central Military University Emergency Hospital, Bucharest | Macular pathology (neovascular age-related macular degeneration, foveal involving geographic atrophy) |
| Large full-thickness idiopathic MH (>400 microns) Minimum follow-up period of 6 months | Retinal pathology (retinal laser, retinal vascular occlusion, diabetic retinopathy) |
| VA >0.1 | Optic nerve pathology (congenital anomalies, tumors, glaucoma) Previous intraocular injection |
MH, macular hole; VA, visual acuity.
Figure 1Average age (years) of the entire study group.
Figure 2Sex distribution of the entire study group.
Figure 3Improvement in visual acuity (VA) 6 months after surgery.
Figure 4Evolution of visual acuity (VA) according to the dye used.
Figure 5IOP by age (years), at one month after surgery.
Figure 6OCT closing type. OCT, optical coherence tomography.
Figure 7Watzke Allen Test results.