Journals / BEYOGLU EYE JOURNAL / 2019 / Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 2

Evaluation of Factors Affecting Epiretinal Membrane Surgery Outcomes

Pages
69–75
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Follow-up observations indicated that cataract progres-sion was the primary factor limiting visual gain.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate several factors affecting the outcome of epiretinal membrane (ERM) surgery.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: The data of a total of 41 eyes of 40 patients (20 female, 20 male) who underwent pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) and epiretinal membrane (ERM) peeling with/without internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling between November 2001 and October 2005 at Beyoğlu Eye Training and Research Hospital with a minimum follow-up of 6 months were included in this retrospective study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Follow-up observations indicated that cataract progres-sion was the primary factor limiting visual gain.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2001 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate several factors affecting the outcome of epiretinal membrane (ERM) surgery. Methods: The data of a total of 41 eyes of 40 patients (20 female, 20 male) who underwent pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) and epiretinal membrane (ERM) peeling with/without internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling between November 2001 and October 2005 at Beyoğlu Eye Training and Research Hospital with a minimum follow-up of 6 months were included in this retrospective study. The patients' best corrected visual acuity (BCVA; Snellen) and the biomicroscopic, funduscopic, and optical coherence tomography (OCT) findings measured preoperatively and at month 1,3,6, and a final visit were recorded. The surgical technique (partial 25-gauge vs 20-gauge), ILM peeling, intraoperative dyes, and the etiology of the ERM were evaluated as separate factors in the surgical outcome. Intraoperative, peroperative, and postoperative compli-cations were assessed and compared. Results: The mean age of the study group participants was 63.56±14.96 years. The mean BCVA had increased from 0.28±0.149 to 0.35±0.24 Snellen lines (p=0.028) at the 6-month visit. In all, 18 of 41 eyes (43.9%) had gained ≥2 Snellen lines at the final visit. Cataract progression was detected in 17 cases (54.8%) of phakic eyes. The incidence of ERM recur-rence was significantly greater in the ILM Intact group (37% vs 0%) than in the ILM Peeled group (p=0.009). There was no significant difference in anatomical or functional outcome between the partial 25-gauge and 20-gauge PPV techniques. Conclusion: ILM peeling significantly reduced ERM recurrence. Follow-up observations indicated that cataract progres-sion was the primary factor limiting visual gain.

🔖

Cite This Article

ERDEN, B., KAPRAN, Z. (2019). Evaluation of Factors Affecting Epiretinal Membrane Surgery Outcomes. BEYOGLU EYE JOURNAL, Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 2, 69–75. https://ajindex.com/articles/143178

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Iwanoff A. Beitraege zur normalen und pathologischen Anatomie des Auges: A.Zur pathologischen Anatomie der Retina. B. Zur normalen und pathologischen Anatomie des Glaskörpers. Grae-fes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1865;11:135–70. Machemer R. The surgical removal of epiretinal macular mem-branes (macular puckers) (author's transl). [Article in German] Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 1978;173:36–42.
  2. Clarkson JG, Green WR, Massof D. A histopathologic re-view of 168 cases of preretinal membrane. Am J Ophthalmol 1977;84:1–17.
  3. Yan X, Andresen P, Lumi X, Chen Q, Petrovski G. Expression of Progenitor Cell Markers in the Glial-Like Cells of Epiretinal Membranes of Different Origins. J Ophthalmol 2018;7096326. McLeod D, Hiscott PS, Grierson I. Age-related cellular prolifer-ation at the vitreoretinal juncture. Eye (Lond) 1987;1:263–81.
  4. Bringmann A, Wiedemann P. Involvement of Müller glial cells in epiretinal membrane formation. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Oph-thalmol 2009;247:865–83.
  5. Morris R, Kuhn F, Witherspoon CD. Hemorrhagic macular cysts. Ophthalmology 1994;101:1. Park DW, Dugel PU, Garda J, Sipperley JO, Thach A, Sneed SR, et al. Macular pucker removal with and without internal limiting membrane peeling: pilot study. Ophthalmology 2003;110:62–4.
  6. Chang S, Gregory-Roberts EM, Park S, Laud K, Smith SD, Hoang QV. Double peeling during vitrectomy for macular pucker: the Charles L. Schepens Lecture. JAMA Ophthalmol 2013;131:525–30.
  7. Kwok AKh, Lai TY, Yuen KS. Epiretinal membrane surgery with or without internal limiting membrane peeling. Clin Exp Oph-thalmol 2005;33:379–85.
  8. Terasaki H, Miyake Y, Nomura R, Piao CH, Hori K, Niwa T, et al. Focal macular ERGs in eyes after removal of macular ILM during macular hole surgery. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001;42:229–34.
  9. Rubinstein A, Bates R, Benjamin L, Shaikh A. Iatrogenic eccentric full thickness macular holes following vitrectomy with ILM peel-ing for idiopathic macular holes. Eye (Lond) 2005;19:1333–5.
  10. Spaide RF. "Dissociated optic nerve fiber layer appearance" after internal limiting membrane removal is inner retinal dimpling. Retina 2012;32:1719–26.
  11. Carpentier C, Zanolli M, Wu L, Sepulveda G, Berrocal MH, Sar-avia M, et al.; Pan-American Collaborative Retina Study Group. Residual internal limiting membrane after epiretinal membrane peeling: results of the Pan-American Collaborative Retina Study Group. Retina 2013;33:2026–31.
  12. Kadonosono K, Itoh N, Uchio E, Nakamura S, Ohno S. Staining of internal limiting membrane in macular hole surgery.