SavedAdd your journal

Journals / BEYOGLU EYE JOURNAL / 2017 / Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 3

Visual and Anatomical Outcomes Following Idiopathic Epiretinal Membrane and Internal Limiting Membrane Peeling

Gökhan DEMİR
Ali DEMİRCAN
Dilek YASA
Husna TOPCU
Erdem ERİS
MUSTAFA GÜRKAN ERDOĞAN
Zeynep ALKIN
Pages
85–89
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)

The rate of recurrence of ERM and the need for repeat ERM surgery was lower in eyes where the ILM was removed with the ERM than the expected rate for when ERM peeling is performed alone

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the functional and anatomical outcomes and the rate of epiretinal membrane (ERM) recurrence in eyes that had undergone ERM-internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling surgery at least 6 months earlier.Methods: The records of 81 eyes of 81 patients who underwent pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) and ERM-ILM peeling with the diagnosis of idiopathic ERM between January 2015 and January 2016 in our clinic were retrospectively reviewed.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Patients with at least 6 months of follow-up were included.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The rate of recurrence of ERM and the need for repeat ERM surgery was lower in eyes where the ILM was removed with the ERM than the expected rate for when ERM peeling is performed alone
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2015 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the functional and anatomical outcomes and the rate of epiretinal membrane (ERM) recurrence in eyes that had undergone ERM-internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling surgery at least 6 months earlier.Methods: The records of 81 eyes of 81 patients who underwent pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) and ERM-ILM peeling with the diagnosis of idiopathic ERM between January 2015 and January 2016 in our clinic were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with at least 6 months of follow-up were included. The demographic details of the patients, duration of the followup period, use of endotamponade, and any complications were recorded. Best corrected visual acuity and central macular thickness (CMT) at baseline and at 6, 12, and 18 months were also recorded.Results: A total of 81eyes of 81 patients, 45 (55.6%) males and 36 (44.4%) females, with a group mean age of 65.7±8.5 years (range: 46-85 years) were assessed. The mean preoperative visual acuity was 0.81±0.50 logMAR (the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution) (0.22 decimals). During the follow-up, the mean visual acuity at 6, 12, and 24 months was 0.61±0.37 logMAR (0.33 decimals), 0.61±0.38 logMAR (0.33 decimals), and 0.55±0.33 logMAR (0.36 decimals), respectively. The visual acuity was significantly better at 6,12, and 24 months compared with the baseline measurement (p<0.05 for all; paired t-test). The mean preoperative CMT was 519±103 μm. During the follow-up, the mean CMT was 302±89 μm, 287±80 μm, and 273±82 μm at 6,12, and 24 months, respectively. Compared with the baseline, a statistically significant difference was observed at 6, 12, and 24 months.Conclusion: PPV with membranectomy and ILM peeling is a safe and effective method to treat idiopathic ERM. It led to a functional improvement and a reduction in macular thickness in most of the patients diagnosed with ERM. The rate of recurrence of ERM and the need for repeat ERM surgery was lower in eyes where the ILM was removed with the ERM than the expected rate for when ERM peeling is performed alone

🔖

Cite This Article

DEMİR, G., DEMİRCAN, A., YASA, D., TOPCU, H., ERİS, E., ERDOĞAN, M. G., ALKIN, Z. (2017). Visual and Anatomical Outcomes Following Idiopathic Epiretinal Membrane and Internal Limiting Membrane Peeling. BEYOGLU EYE JOURNAL, Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 3, 85–89. https://ajindex.com/articles/148146

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Mitchell P, Smith W, Chey T, Wang JJ, Chang A. Prevalence and associations of epiretinal membranes. The Blue Mountains Eye Study, Australia. Ophthalmology 1997;104:1033–40
  2. Folk JC, Adelman RA, Flaxel CJ, Hyman L, Pulido JS, Olsen TW. Idiopathic Epiretinal Membrane and Vitreomacular Traction Preferred Practice Pattern(®) Guidelines. Ophthalmology 2016;123:P152–81
  3. Arimura E, Matsumoto C, Okuyama S, Takada S, Hashimoto S, Shimomura Y. Retinal contraction and metamorphopsia scores in eyes with idiopathic epiretinal membrane. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005;46:2961–6
  4. Margherio RR, Cox MS Jr, Trese MT, Murphy PL, Johnson J, Minor LA. Removal of epimacular membranes. Ophthalmology 1985;92:1075–83
  5. Bu SC, Kuijer R, Li XR, Hooymans JM, Los LI. Idiopathic epiretinal membrane. Retina 2014;34:2317–35
  6. Machemer R. The surgical removal of epiretinal macular mem- Demir et al., Epiretinal Membrane and Internal Limiting Membrane 89 branes (macular puckers) (author's transl). Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 1978;173:36–42
  7. Sandali O, El Sanharawi M, Lecuen N, Barale PO, Bonnel S, Basli E, et al. 25-, 23-, and 20-gauge vitrectomy in epiretinal membrane surgery: a comparative study of 553 cases. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2011;249:1811–9
  8. Sandali O, El Sanharawi M, Basli E, Bonnel S, Lecuen N, Barale PO, et al. Epiretinal membrane recurrence: incidence, characteristics, evolution, and preventive and risk factors. Retina 2013;33:2032–8
  9. Sorcinelli R. Surgical management of epiretinal membrane with indocyanine-green-assisted peeling. Ophthalmologica 2003;217:107–10
  10. Semeraro F, Morescalchi F, Duse S, Gambicorti E, Russo A, Costagliola C. Current Trends about Inner Limiting Membrane Peeling in Surgery for Epiretinal Membranes. J Ophthalmol 2015;2015:671905
  11. Kuhn F. Point: to peel or not to peel, that is the question. Ophthalmology 2002;109:9–11
  12. Gibran SK, Flemming B, Stappler T, Pearce I, Groenewald C, Heimann H, et al. Peel and peel again. Br J Ophthalmol 2008;92:373–7
  13. Kwok AKh, Lai TY, Yuen KS. Epiretinal membrane surgery with or without internal limiting membrane peeling. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2005;33:379–85
  14. Shimada H, Nakashizuka H, Hattori T, Mori R, Mizutani Y, Yuzawa M. Double staining with brilliant blue G and double peeling for epiretinal membranes. Ophthalmology 2009;116:1370–6
  15. Tranos P, Koukoula S, Charteris DG, Perganda G, Vakalis A, Asteriadis S, et al. The role of internal limiting membrane peeling in epiretinal m