| Literature DB >> 36249443 |
Andrii Ruban1, Beáta Éva Petrovski2, Goran Petrovski2,3,4, Lyubomyr M Lytvynchuk5,6.
Abstract
Background: Despite the abundance of novel surgical approaches proposed for full thickness macular hole (FTMH) treatment, the choice of the optimal technique remains debatable Vitrectomy with «classic» internal limiting membrane peeling and gas tamponade remains the standard of FTMH surgery in many cases, but there are still very limited recent publications on the outcomes of such surgery. Purpose: To investigate the anatomical and functional result and to analyze the significance of outcome-related risk factors of the classic 25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with ILM peeling and gas tamponade (GT) for treatment of FTMH of different etiology. Patients and methods: Thirty-eight eyes of thirty-seven patients with FTMH who underwent 25-gauge PPV, ILM peeling and GT were recruited for this retrospective, consecutive, interventional study. Four eyes with persistent holes underwent a re-operation. Outcome-related factors were discussed.Entities:
Keywords: full-thickness macular hole; gas tamponade; internal limiting membrane peeling; macular hole closure; pars plana vitrectomy; restoration of ELM/EZ
Year: 2022 PMID: 36249443 PMCID: PMC9555881 DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S373675
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Ophthalmol ISSN: 1177-5467
Figure 1Case: 3 (A) 56-year-old woman with idiopathic large MH was treated with conventional PPV and ILM peeling. Her preoperative minimum MH diameter was 633 μm, the axial length was 22.4 mm and the BCVA was 0.3 decimal (A). One day after surgery, the edges of the macular hole were not in contact with each other (red arrow), therefore a face down position was recommended for two more days (B). On the third day closure of the MH was confirmed with OCT (green arrow), but the ELM line and the EZ line were still noticeably interrupted (C). Face down position was discontinued. One month after surgery, the BCVA was 0.4 decimal, the ELM line was partially restored and the EZ line was disrupted (long distance between two white arrows). Multiple intraretinal hyperreflective areas were seen on OCT as well (yellow arrow) (D). Three months postoperatively, the BCVA improved to 0.6 decimal. The ELM line was completely restored but the EZ line was still disrupted although the size of the defect has significantly decreased (between two white arrows) (E). Six months after the surgery both the ELM and the EZ lines were completely restored. The BCVA was 0.9 decimal (F). Microperimetry (SLO) has shown that there was no scotoma within fovel area (G).
Figure 2Case 4: (A) 60-year-old woman with idiopathic large MH was treated with conventional PPV and ILM peeling. Her preoperative minimum MH diameter was 461 μm, the axial length was 23.6 mm and the BCVA was 0.1 decimal (A). Two weeks after the surgery, the MH was closed and the BCVA increased to 0.3 decimal. The ELM line was restored, but the EZ line was noticeably interrupted (yellow arrow) (B). One month after the surgery, the BCVA was 0.5 decimal and the EZ line was almost completely restored (C). Three months postoperatively, the decimal BCVA improved to 0.9 decimal. The ELM line and the EZ line were completely restored (D). Microperimetry (SLO) was performed at 3 months period and showed neither paracentral scotoma nor reduced central retinal sensitivity after ILM peeling in foveal area (E).
Figure 3Case 5: (A) 58-year-old woman with idiopathic large MH was treated with conventional ILM peeling. Her preoperative minimum MH diameter was 404 μm, the axial length was 23.1 mm and the BCVA was 0.2 decimal (A). One day after surgery, the MH was closed, but the ELM line and the EZ line was noticeably interrupted (yellow arrow) (B). One month after surgery, the BCVA was 0.6 decimal, the ELM line and the EZ line were completely restored (C). Three months postoperatively, the decimal BCVA improved to 0.9 decimal (D).
Preoperative Characteristics of Patients with Full-Thickness Macular Holes Undergoing Vitrectomy with ILM Peeling
| Variables | Standard ILM Peeling Technique (n = 38) |
|---|---|
| Gender | |
| Males | 9 (24.3) |
| Females | 28 (75.7) |
| Age, years, median (IQR) | 63.6 ± 11.5 (60 – 70) |
| Operated eye | |
| Right | 17 (44.7) |
| Left | 21 (55.3) |
| Axial length, mm, median (IQR) | 24.4 ± 2.2 (23.1 – 24.9) |
| Axial length >26.0 mm | 5 (13.6) |
| Symptoms duration, (months) median (IQR) | 5.7 ± 7.1 (2 – 6) |
| Symptoms duration >6 months | 8 (21.1) |
| Lens status | |
| Phakic | 33 (86.8) |
| Pseudophakic/IOL | 5 (13.2) |
| BCVA decimal, median (IQR) | 0.25 ± 0.18 (0.15 – 0.3) |
| BCVA logMAR, median (IQR) | 0.72 ± 0.35 (0.5–0.8) |
| Minimum diameter MH, (μm), median (IQR) | 391.4 ± 174.9 (230.0 – 517.3) |
| <400 | 19 (50) |
| >400 | 19 (50) |
| Follow-up, months, median (IQR) | 5.0 (4.1–10.4) |
Note: Data are expressed as frequencies and percentages in parenthesis unless otherwise stated.
Abbreviation: IQR, interquartile range (25–75%).
Anatomical and Functional Results in Patients with Full-Thickness Macular Holes Undergoing Vitrectomy with ILM Peeling
| Variables | ILM Peeling Technique (n = 38) | p |
|---|---|---|
| Macular hole closed after first PPV | 34 (89.5) | |
| Macular hole closed at the end of follow-up | 38 (100.0) | |
| Restoration of ELM at 3 months | 35 (92.0) | |
| Restoration of EZ at 3 months | 18 (47) | |
| Phacoemulsification + IOL in combination with PPV | 31 (81.5) | |
| BCVA (decimal), median | ||
| At 1 month | 0.6 (0.1–1.0) | p = 0.0001 |
| At 3 months | 0.73 (0.3–1.0) | p = 0.0001 |
| Improvement of BCVA (decimal), median | ||
| At 1 month | 0.35 (0.07–0,7) | |
| At 3 month | 0.48 (0.1–0.8) | |
| Improvement of BCVA >2 lines | ||
| At 1 month | 32 (84.2) | |
| At 3 months | 34 (89.5) | |
| BCVA>0.5 (decimal) | ||
| At 1 months | 24 (63.1) | |
| At 3 months | 30 (78.9) |
Note: Data are expressed as frequencies and percentages in parenthesis unless otherwise stated.
Abbreviation: IQR, interquartile range (25–75%).
Differences in Variables Between the Groups with Primary Closed and Persistent MH Cases After the First Surgery
| Variables | Group 1* | Group 2** | U; | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years | 63.8 ± 12.1; | 62.0 ± 4.1; | 44.0; | |
| Duration of the symptoms, month | 5.3 ± 7.0; | 9.3 ± 7.9 | 45.5; | |
| Minimum macular hole diameter (SS-OCT), mm | 378.9 ± 165.3; | 498.5 ± 244.4 | 45.0; | |
| Axial length, mm | 24.0 ± 1.9; | 27.3 ± 3.0; | 0.32; | |
| Preoperative BCVA, LogMAR | 0.68±0.33; | 1.1±0.35; | 0.26; | |
| BCVA at 1 month, LogMAR | 0.21 ± 0.12; | 0.53 ±0.05; | 3.0; | |
| BCVA at 3 months, LogMAR | 0.15 ±0.11; | 0.38 ±0.09; | 6.5; | |
Notes: *Group 1 - The group with primary MH closure (N = 34 eyes). **Group 2 - The group with persistent MHs (N = 4 eyes).