POSTOPERATIVE MACULAR HOLE FORMATION AFTER VITRECTOMY WITH INTERNAL LIMITING MEMBRANE PEELING FOR THE TREATMENT OF EPIRETINAL MEMBRANE

Pros and cons of internal limiting membrane peeling during epiretinal membrane surgery: a randomised clinical trial with microperimetry (PEELING)

BACKGROUND

After idiopathic epiretinal membrane (iERM) removal, it is unclear whether the internal limiting membrane (ILM) should be removed. The objective was to assess if active ILM peeling after iERM removal could induce microscotomas.

METHODS

The PEELING study is a national randomised clinical trial. When no spontaneous ILM peeling occurred, patients were randomised either to the ILM peeling or no ILM peeling group. Groups were compared at the month 1 (M1), M6 and M12 visits in terms of microperimetry, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and optical coherence tomography findings. The primary outcome was the difference in microscotoma number between baseline and M6.

RESULTS

213 patients were included, 101 experienced spontaneous ILM peeling and 100 were randomised to the ILM peeling (n=51) or no ILM peeling group (n=49). The difference in microscotoma number between both groups was significant at M1 (3.9 more microscotomas in ILM peeling group, (0.8;7.0) p=0.0155) but not at M6 (2.1 more microscotomas in ILM peeling group (-0.5;4.7) p=0.1155). Only in the no ILM peeling group, the number of microscotomas significantly decreased and the mean retinal sensitivity significantly improved. The ERM recurred in nine patients in the no ILM peeling group (19.6%) versus zero in the ILM peeling group (p=0.0008): two of them underwent revision surgery. There was no difference in mean BCVA and microperimetry between patients experiencing or not a recurrence at M12.

CONCLUSION

Spontaneous ILM peeling is very common. Active ILM peeling prevents anatomical ERM recurrence but may induce retinal impairments and delay visual recovery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02146144.

Impacts of Surgeons' Experience on Patients with Epiretinal Membrane: A Retrospective Study from 2015 to 2020 in Wenzhou Eye Hospital

Background

To explore the impacts of surgeons’ experience in patients with epiretinal membrane (ERM).

Methods

Patients with idiopathic ERM (334 eyes) who underwent PPV and membrane peeling were included in this study. The surgeries were performed by 9 surgeons. Patients were categorized into the experienced group (surgeons who had performed more than 5000 cases of PPV) and the regular group (surgeons who had performed less than 1000 cases of PPV). The patients were also categorized into five groups according to different preoperative best corrected visual acuity (BCVA): 20/100 or worse, 20/70-20/50, 20/40-20/30, 20/25 and 20/20. Impacts of preoperative BCVA, surgeons’ experience, lens status, and internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling on postoperative BCVA were analyzed.

Results

The postoperative BCVA was significantly better at 1 week and 1 month in the experienced group compared to the regular group (p = 0.022 and 0.045, respectively). There were no significant differences in postoperative BCVA at 3 months and 6 months between the two groups (p = 0.268 and 0.233, respectively). Postoperative BCVA at 6 months was similar in the 20/25 group and 20/20 group (p = 0.063); both groups had better BCVA compared to the other three groups. The 20/100 or worse group had the greatest visual improvement among the 5 groups at 6 months.

Conclusion

This study suggested that although the experience of surgeons had no significant impact on the final BCVA following PPV and ERM removal, the BCVA during the early postoperative phase appeared to be better in the experienced group.

Secondary Full-thickness Macular Holes after Diabetic Vitrectomy: Clinical Manifestations and Rational Approaches to the Treatment

Purpose. The aim of the study is to present the clinical characteristics and surgical treatment of secondary full-thickness macular hole (MH) after diabetic vitrectomy (DV) in patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). Methods. In this retrospective, observational, and longitudinal study, we enrolled consecutive patients with PDR who developed MH after DV. The macular structure was evaluated using optical coherence tomography. The clinical characteristics, surgical techniques, and outcomes were also recorded. Results. Three patients developed MH within 6 weeks, which was associated with foveal thinning, residual fibrovascular proliferation, or anterior proliferative vitreoretinopathy. Six patients developed MH originating from the epiretinal membrane (ERM) with lamellar MH (LMH) after a median interval of 16.5 months. Three of them were complicated with retinal detachment (RD). Various surgical procedures were performed according to the clinical scenarios, including internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling, inverted ILM flap insertion, temporal inverted ILM flap, lens posterior capsular flap insertion, and neurosensory retinal free flap insertion. All patients achieved MH closure after surgery, and 5 patients exhibited improved visual acuity. Conclusions. MH may develop after successful DV, with a high rate of associated RD. Rapid MH formation was attributed to unreleased tractional force and weakened foveal structure. The development of ERM and LMH also led to MH. Various surgical techniques could be used for MH closure.

Secondary Macular Holes Post Pars Plana Vitrectomy

Purpose

To report incidence, clinical presentation, and treatment outcome of full-thickness macular hole (FTMHs) diagnosed post pars plana vitrectomy.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the demographics, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), indication for the primary vitrectomy, time to diagnose the secondary FTMH, optical coherence tomographic (OCT) appearance, and treatment outcome of FTMHs, occurring after vitrectomy performed between January 2019 and December 2020.

Results

Six of 523 vitrectomized eyes developed FTMHs, an incidence of 1.1%. There were five females and one male, mean age of 56.5 years (range 37–85). The indication for primary vitrectomy was rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) in three eyes, one eye each for sub internal limiting membrane hemorrhage from a ruptured macroaneurysm, vitreous hemorrhage from polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV), and pre-insertion of Ahmed glaucoma drainage device (GDD). FTMHs occurred within one week to three months after vitrectomy (time from primary vitrectomy to the identification of the secondary MH was a mean of 1.03 months). Mean BCVA in all six MH eyes was log MAR 0.9 (Snellen: 6/54). Anatomical closure was achieved after one surgery in three eyes, two surgeries in 1 eye, after photodynamic therapy (PDT) in the PCV eye, and one patient declined surgery. The mean BCVA in the four surgically closed MH eyes improved marginally from log MAR 0.82 (Snellen: 6/38) to log MAR 0.72 (Snellen: 6/30), mean follow-up 7.6 months.

Conclusion

Post-vitrectomy FTMH is rare, and RRD was the commonest indication for initial vitrectomy. We observed that all secondary MHs were closed successfully using the inverted internal limiting membrane (ILM) flap technique with limited improvement in vision. The visual outcome of these secondary MHs trails behind that of idiopathic MHs.

EFFECT OF LASER PHOTOCOAGULATION ON MACULAR EDEMA ASSOCIATED WITH MACULAR HOLES

PURPOSE

To report the outcomes of laser therapy to barricade eccentric full-thickness macular hole with associated cystoid macular edema.

METHODS

We report two patients who developed an eccentric full-thickness macular hole with persistent cystoid macular edema after pars plan vitrectomy with and without internal limiting membrane peel for epiretinal membrane and the results of argon laser therapy.

RESULTS

Barricade argon laser therapy was applied concentric to the full-thickness macular hole. Associated cystoid macular edema was noted to resolve within 1 to 3 months of therapy in both cases.

CONCLUSION

Barricade laser therapy surrounding a macular hole can lead to resolution of associated cystoid macular edema. Pathogenic mechanisms to explain this favorable outcome are discussed.

ATYPICAL MACULAR HOLES

PURPOSE

To study the etiology, clinical features, management options, and visual prognosis in various types of atypical macular holes (MHs).

METHODS

A review of the literature was performed, which focused on the etiopathogenesis of atypical or secondary MHs, their differentiating clinical features, management strategies, and varied clinical outcomes. Idiopathic or age-related, myopic, and traumatic MHs were excluded.

RESULTS

Atypical or secondary MHs arise out of concurrent ocular pathologies (dystrophy, degeneration, or infections) and laser/surgery. The contributing factors may be similar to those responsible for idiopathic or typical MHs, i.e., tangential or anteroposterior vitreofoveal traction or cystoid degeneration. The management is either observation or treatment of the underlying cause. The prognosis depends on the background pathology, duration of disease, and baseline visual acuity governed by the size of MH and morphologic health of underlying RPE and photoreceptors. The closer the morphology of atypical MH is to that of an idiopathic MH, the better the surgical outcome is.

CONCLUSION

With the advancements in retinal imaging, atypical MHs are now more frequently recognized. With increasing understanding of the underlying disease processes, and improvement in investigations and surgical treatment, management of atypical MHs may improve in the future.

Does internal limiting membrane peeling during epiretinal membrane surgery induce microscotomas on microperimetry? Study protocol for PEELING, a randomized controlled clinical trial

Background

The epiretinal membrane (ERM) is a degenerative condition associated with age, which can cause loss of vision and/or metamorphopsia. The treatment of symptomatic ERM involves surgical removal including a vitrectomy followed by peeling of the ERM using a microforceps. As the internal limiting membrane (ILM) is adherent to the ERM, it is sometimes removed with it (spontaneous peeling). If ILM remains in place, it can be removed to reduce ERM recurrence. However, it is important to clarify the safety of ILM peeling, while it increases surgical risks and cause histological disorganization of the retina that can lead to microscotomas, may be responsible for definitive visual discomfort.

Methods

PEELING is a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blind, and multicentered trial with two parallel arms. This study investigates the benefit/risk ratio of active ILM peeling among individuals undergoing ERM surgery without spontaneous ILM peeling. Randomization is done in the operating room after ERM removal if ILM remains in place. After randomization, the two groups—“active peeling of the ILM” and “no peeling of the ILM”—are compared during a total of three follow-up visits scheduled at month 1, month 6, and month 12. Primary endpoint is the difference in microscotomas before surgery and 6 months after surgery. Patients with spontaneous peeling are not randomized and are included in the ancillary study with the same follow-up visits and the same examinations as the principal study.

Relevant inclusion criteria involve individuals aged > 18 years living with idiopathic symptomatic ERM, including pseudophakic patients with transparent posterior capsule or open capsule or lensed patients with age-related cataracts. The calculated sample size corresponds to 53 randomized eyes (one eye/patient) per arm that means 106 randomized eyes (106 randomized patients) in total and a maximum of 222 included patients (116 spontaneous peeling).

Discussion

ILM peeling is often practiced in ERM surgery to reduce ERM recurrence. It does not impair postoperative visual acuity, but it increases the surgical risks and causes anatomical damages. If active ILM peeling is significantly associated with more microscotomas, it may contraindicate the ILM peeling during primitive idiopathic ERM surgery.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02146144. Registered on 22 May 2014. Recruitment is still ongoing.

Comparison of 27-gauge versus 25-gauge vitrectomy results in patients with epiretinal membrane: 6-month follow-up

PURPOSE

To compare the 27G versus 25G vitrectomy in patients with epiretinal membrane (ERM).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Sixty pseudophakic eyes of 60 consecutive patients treated by pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) using 27G (30 eyes) or 25G (30 eyes) were prospectively evaluated including eye's inflammation, surgery time, ERM + ILM removal time and complications. Additionally, 1, 3, 7, 14, 30, 90 and 180 days after PPV, the following were estimated: intraocular pressure (IOP), sclerotomy wound closure time, distance best corrected visual acuity (DBCVA), foveal macular thickness (FMT) and surgically induced astigmatism (SIA).

RESULTS

The eye's inflammation resolved within 30 days after surgery in both groups. The surgery and ERM + ILM times were longer in the 27G group (p ≤ 0.02). The most common postoperative complication was hypotony in both groups, more common in 25G group (23.3% vs. 10% of eyes). In 27G group, the mean IOP prior to 180 days postoperatively was higher (p < 0.05) and the sclerotomy wound closure time was shorter (p < 0.001). Mean DBCVA values (7, 14, 30 days after surgery) were significantly better in 27G group (p < 0.001). The mean FMT values were similarly and significantly reduced in both groups 1 day postoperatively (p < 0.05) as compared to preoperative values and then stabilized during follow-up. Mean SIA was lower in 27G group 30, 90 and 180 days after surgery (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The use of 27G PPV in patients with ERM significantly reduced sclerotomy wound closure time and surgically induced astigmatism, better stabilized intraocular pressure and allowed to achieve faster visual acuity improvement, as compared to 25G PPV.

Postoperative eccentric macular holes after surgery for vitreomacular interface diseases

PURPOSE

To assess the incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcome of postoperative eccentric macular hole (ECMH) after epiretinal membrane (ERM), macular hole (MH), and idiopathic vitreomacular traction (VMT) surgery and discuss the underlying possible mechanisms.

METHODS

A retrospective study was carried out for 711 eyes of 711 consecutive patients who underwent 25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with ERM (396 eyes), MH (268 eyes), and VMT (47 eyes) surgery between 2010 and 2016. Mean follow-up time was 19 months.

RESULTS

Eight patients developed ECMH (1.12%). Four of the patients were ERM, three patients were idiopathic full thickness MH, and one patient was ERM and lamellar pseudohole. There was no ECMH in patients with VMT. The average time of hole formation after vitrectomy was 7.25 weeks with a range from 2 to 15 weeks. Three patients developed 2 ECMH, and others had 1 ECMH. The location of the ECMH was mostly in the temporal of fovea. All patients were asymptomatic. No retinal detachment or choroidal neovascularization occurred in any patient and no additional intervention was attempted in the postoperative period in any case.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative ECMH may be seen after vitreomacular interface surgery. They are mostly asymptomatic, usually do not require additional intervention and often located in the parafoveal area. ILM peeling-induced muller cell damage, residual ILM contraction, and iatrogenic trauma may play a role as the underlying cause in our case series.

Optic disc pit maculopathy: a review of diagnosis and treatment

Optic disc pit is a rare congenital defect which appears as a circumscribed greyish depression in the lamina cribrosa. Serous macular detachment is one of the most visually debilitating complications of optic disc pit, affecting 25-75 per cent of patients. Although there is a wide variety of treatment modalities available with varying degrees of success, there is yet no consensus in the optimal management of optic disc pit-associated maculopathy. This review discusses the literature on the pathogenesis, clinical presentation, diagnosis and treatment options.

Office-based intravitreal injection of expansile gas for management of macular hole in previously vitrectomized eyes

Purpose

To report the successful closure of full-thickness macular hole (MH), using an office-based intravitreal gas injection, in two eyes having undergone prior pars plana vitrectomy (PPV).

Observations

Patient 1 presented with acute loss of visual acuity to 20/300 in the left eye 5 months following PPV for fovea-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment; MH was confirmed by examination and optical coherence tomography (OCT). 0.6 cc of 100% C3F8 gas was injected, with subsequent MH closure following one week of face-down positioning. Patient 2 presented with right eye visual acuity of 20/60 one month following PPV for optic nerve pit-associated maculopathy; MH was confirmed by examination and OCT. 0.85 cc of 100% C3F8 gas was injected in the office, with subsequent MH closure following one week of face-down positioning.

Conclusions and importance

MH management in previously vitrectomized eyes has traditionally been repeat PPV with internal limiting membrane peeling, fluid-air exchange, and expansile gas exchange. Intravitreal gas injection, in an office-based setting, is a viable clinical approach to close MH in some previously vitrectomized eyes.

TO PEEL OR NOT TO PEEL THE INTERNAL LIMITING MEMBRANE IN IDIOPATHIC EPIRETINAL MEMBRANES

BACKGROUND

Epiretinal membranes (ERMs) have been described for more than 150 years. Currently, they are a common indication for vitreoretinal surgery. Recently, there has been an increasing trend to peel the internal limiting membrane (ILM). Although ILM peeling has generally been accepted as a fundamental step in macular hole repair, its current role in ERM remains controversial.

METHODS

Literature review.

RESULTS

Proponents of ILM peeling argue that peeling of the ILM reduces the recurrence rate and facilitates a greater resolution of retinal folds. Opponents of ILM peeling show that the visual outcomes between eyes that undergo ILM peeling and those that do not have their ILM peeled are the same. Stripping of the ILM removes the Müller cell footplates, so it is reasonable to expect some Müller cell dysfunction. Adverse events such as eccentric paracentral macular holes, macular microscotomata, and retinal dimpling have been associated with ILM peeling.

CONCLUSION

Internal limiting membrane peeling does not improve the functional outcomes after ERM surgery. Internal limiting membrane peeling reduces ERM recurrences, but many recurrences are not clinically significant. It remains unclear what the long-term effects of ILM peeling are. We should err on the side of caution and avoid routine ILM peeling in primary idiopathic ERM cases and should reserve it for recurrent and high risk of recurrence cases.

Multiple extrafoveal macular holes following internal limiting membrane peeling

Objective

Internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling has been the standard of treatment for macular holes. Besides, causing retinal nerve fiber layer surface abnormality, postoperative extrafoveal multiple retinal holes is a rare phenomenon following ILM peeling. We report an unusual complication of eight extrafoveal macular holes occurring following ILM peeling.

Case presentation

A 60-year-old male presented with complaints of decreased and distorted vision in the right eye. He was diagnosed as having epiretinal membrane with lamellar macular hole. He underwent 23G pars plana vitrectomy, brilliant blue assisted ILM peeling and fluid gas exchange. Intraoperatively, ILM was found to be adherent to the underlying neurosensory retina. One month after cataract surgery, he underwent YAG capsulotomy in the right eye. He complained of visual distortion. His fundus evaluation in the right eye showed multiple (eight) extrafoveal retinal holes temporal to the macula clustered together.

Conclusion

This case demonstrated that peeling of ILM, especially when it is adherent to the underlying neurosensory retina, may cause unwanted mechanical trauma to the inner retina. Glial apoptosis and neuronal degeneration may presumably play a role in delayed appearance of multiple (eight) extrafoveal macular holes, which has not been reported earlier.

Eccentric Macular Hole after Pars Plana Vitrectomy for Epiretinal Membrane Without Internal Limiting Membrane Peeling: A Case Report

Introduction

Postoperative eccentric macular hole formation is an uncommon complication after pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) without internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling for the treatment of epiretinal membrane (ERM). We present a case of eccentric macular hole formation after PPV for ERM without ILM peeling.

Case report

A 68-year-old male patient presented with ERM and visual acuity of 6/24 in his left eye. He underwent 23-gauge PPV without ILM peeling for treatment of ERM. One week postoperatively the retina was attached and the epiretinal membrane was successfully removed, while visual acuity was 6/9. One month after PPV, a single eccentric retinal hole below the macula was detected using fundoscopy and subsequently confirmed by optical coherence tomography. At this time the visual acuity was 6/9 and the patient reported no symptoms. No further intervention was attempted and at the 9-month follow-up, the visual acuity and the size of the eccentric macular hole remained stable.

Conclusion

Eccentric macular holes can be developed after PPV even without ILM peeling and are usually managed conservatively by observation.

Eccentric Macular Hole after Pars Plana Vitrectomy for Idiopathic Macular Hole: A Case Report

Introduction

Postoperative eccentric macular hole (MH) formation is an uncommon complication after pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling for epiretinal membrane or MH treatment. Herein, we present a case of eccentric MH formation after PPV with ILM peeling for MH.

Case Description

A 72-year-old female patient underwent 23-gauge PPV with ILM peeling for idiopathic MH in her right eye. The visual acuity was 6/24 in the right eye. One week postoperatively the retina was attached and the MH seemed to be closed, while visual acuity was 6/12. One month after PPV, there was a single eccentric retinal hole below the macula, which was detected at the fundoscopy and was confirmed by OCT. The visual acuity was 6/9 and the patient referred no symptoms. No further intervention was attempted, and at the 6-month follow-up the visual acuity and the size of the eccentric MH remained stable.

Conclusions

Eccentric MHs can develop after PPV and are usually managed conservatively by observation.

Postoperative eccentric macular holes after vitrectomy and internal limiting membrane peeling

The purpose of this study was to describe the incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcome of eccentric macular holes presenting after vitrectomy and internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling for the treatment of macular pathology and discuss the pathogenesis of holes formation. A retrospective, noncomparative, interventional case-series study of five patients who developed eccentric macular holes postoperatively following vitrectomy in 198 consecutive patients who underwent ILM peeling for idiopathic macular hole and epiretinal membrane formation between 2008 and 2015. Five patients (2.5 %) developed full-thickness eccentric macular holes postoperatively. Three patients presented with a single eccentric macular hole, one patient had an eccentric hole after a failed idiopathic macular hole surgery and one patient developed four eccentric macular holes. The mean diameter of the holes was 584 μm (range 206-1317 μm) and the average time of holes formation after vitrectomy was 27.7 weeks (range 1-140 weeks). Postoperative best-corrected visual acuity ranged from "counting fingers" to 20/25. The eyes with the holes distant from the fovea had the best final visual acuity. No further intervention was attempted and no complications occurred. The mean follow-up time was 26.8 months. The postoperative macular holes after vitrectomy and ILM peeling were variable in number, size, and time of appearance but remained stable and were not associated with any complications. The pathogenesis of macular holes is most consistent with contraction of the residual ILM or secondary epimacular proliferation probably stimulated by ILM peeling.

25-Gauge Vitrectomy with Epiretinal Membrane and Internal Limiting Membrane Peeling in Eyes with Very Good Visual Acuity

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) in patients with epiretinal membrane (ERM) and preoperative visual acuity (VA) of 20/40 or better.

METHODS

44 eyes that underwent PPV and ERM peeling were included in this retrospective study. Data retrieved included demographic information, VA and intraocular pressure (IOP) preoperatively, after 1 month, 6 months and at final visit, presence of metamorphopsia, surgical reports, and occurrence of any complications.

RESULTS

Mean preoperative VA was 20/36 (0.24 ± 0.08 logMAR) and had improved to 20/27 (0.13 ± 0.11 logMAR) at the final follow-up (p < 0.001). Thirty (68.1%) eyes had improved by 1 line of vision or more, and 10 (22.7%) achieved final 20/20 vision. Significant improvement in vision was achieved earlier in eyes that underwent vitrectomy combined with cataract extraction. Preoperative OCT scans demonstrated preserved outer retinal layer structure.

CONCLUSIONS

PPV and ERM peeling is a safe and effective procedure in eyes with very good preoperative VA. PPV combined with cataract extraction offers a faster improvement in VA than PPV alone with deferred cataract surgery. PPV should be considered in symptomatic eyes with ERM and VA of 20/40 or better, in order to preserve and even improve the VA.