VITRECTOMY FOR PERSISTENT MACULAR HOLES FOLLOWING OCRIPLASMIN INJECTION: A Comparative Multicenter Study

Pneumatic vitreolysis versus vitrectomy for the treatment of vitreomacular traction syndrome and macular holes: complication analysis and systematic review with meta-analysis of functional outcomes

BACKGROUND

We conducted a systematic review to compare  the effects of pneumatic vitreolysis (PV), enzymatic vitreolysis (EVL) with ocriplasmin, and pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) on vitreomacular traction (VMT) syndrome and macular holes (MHs) to assess their efficacy as treatment options.

METHODS

Databases, including PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov ( www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov ), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)-including the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2)-, Ovid MEDLINE, and EMBASE (January 2000-October 2022), were searched to identify studies comparing the outcomes of PV versus PPV, PPV versus ocriplasmin and ocriplasmin versus PV. RevMan 5.1 was used for the meta-analysis of the studies.

RESULTS

Among the 89 studies, 79 were considered eligible for qualitative analysis, and 10 quantitative studies were subjected to meta-analysis. PPV resulted in better postoperative visual acuity improvement than ocriplasmin (standardized mean deviation (SMD) = 0.38, 95% CI 0.03-0.73, p = 0.0003). PV resulted in no significant difference in visual improvement compared  with  PPV (SMD = - 0.15, 95% CI - 0.47 to 0.16, p = 0.35). PPV was significantly more effective in terms of the VMT release rate (risk ratio = 0.48, 95% CI 0.38-0.62, p = 0.00001) and MH closure rate (risk ratio = 0.49, 95% CI 0.30-0.81, p = 0.006) than ocriplasmin. PV was more effective than ocriplasmin in terms of the VMT release rate (risk ratio = 0.49, 95% CI 0.35-0.70, p = 0.0001). Qualitative analysis showed MH closure rates of 46%, 47.8%, and 95% and VMT releases rates of 46%, 68% and 100% after ocriplasmin, PV, and PPV treatments, respectively.  Adverse events and postoperative complications occurring after treatment have also been documented in these studies.

CONCLUSION

PPV appears to be the most promising option for MH closure and VMT release, with fewer serious complications than EVL  or PV. However, given the limited number of studies comparing these treatments, further research is needed to establish the superiority of PPV over the other options.

Comparison of Intraocular Tamponade in Patients with Peripheral Tear-Induced Retinal Detachment and Coexisting Macular Hole without High Myopia

INTRODUCTION

To introduce the surgical results and examine the effect of intraocular tamponades on surgical outcomes in patients with coexisting macular hole (MH) and rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) without high myopia.

METHODS

This retrospective, cross-sectional, two-center study was carried out with 29 eyes of 29 patients. The patients were divided into two groups according to the intraocular tamponade used in surgery: silicone oil (Group 1) and C₃F₈ gas (Group 2). In all patients, the internal limiting membrane was peeled during surgery. Exclusion criteria were determined as RRD with MH due to high myopia (≥ 6 D) without peripheral retinal tears and traumatic MH.

RESULTS

In Group 1, the median preoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 3.0 (M ± SD: 2.85 ± 0.27) logMAR, while the median postoperative BCVA was 1.0 (M ± SD: 1.39 ± 0.83) logMAR (p < 0.001). In Group 2, the median preoperative BCVA was 3.0 (M ± SD: 2.37 ± 0.93) logMAR, while the median postoperative BCVA was 0.76 (M ± SD: 1.06 ± 0.86) logMAR (p = 0.008). The retinal attachment success rate was 15/17 (89.3%) in Group 1, and 11/12 (91.7%) in Group 2 (p = 0.64). The MH closure rate was 12/17 (71.6%) in Group 1, and 10/12 (78.1%) in Group 2 (p = 0.52). No difference was determined between the groups in terms of preoperative and postoperative BCVA, preoperative and postoperative intraocular pressure, and BCVA improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

The study results showed no significant difference between using silicone oil or C₃F₈ gas as an intraocular tamponade after internal limiting membrane peeling in patients with RRD due to peripheral tear with coexisting MH.

Internal limiting membrane peeling in macular hole surgery

Since the era when macular hole was considered untreatable, macular hole surgery has come a long way to being one of the most successful surgeries. Internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling has been an essential step of macular hole surgery since the establishment of the role of ILM in the aetiopathogenesis and progression of macular hole. However, the novel technique was not all virtuous. It had some vices which were not evident immediately. With the advent of spectral domain optical coherence tomography, short- and long-term effects of ILM peeling on macular structures were known; and with microperimetry, its effect on the function of macula could be evaluated. The technique has evolved with time from total peeling to inverted flap to just temporal peeling and temporal flap in an attempt to mitigate its adverse effects and to improve its surgical outcome. ILM abrasion technique and Ocriplasmin may eliminate the need of ILM peeling in selected cases, but they have their own limitations. We here discuss the role of ILM in the pathogenesis of macular hole, the benefits and adverse effects of ILM peeling, and the various modifications of the procedure, to then explore the alternatives.

Pharmacotherapy for Choroidal Neovascularization Due to Uncommon Causes

BACKGROUND

Choroidal neovascularization (CNV) in adults is most commonly associated with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and pathologic myopia. Though less common, CNV can also develop from other conditions such as uveitis, central serous chorioretinopathy, angioid streaks, intraocular tumors, hereditary chorioretinal dystrophies, or can be idiopathic in origin. If left untreated, CNV may cause visual loss because of exudation of intraretinal or subretinal fluid, retinal or subretinal hemorrhage, or fibrosis involving the macula. It is well known that one of the main drivers of angiogenesis in CNV development is vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and therefore inhibitors of VEGF might be an effective treatment for CNV.

METHODS

The goal of this review is to provide an overview and summary in the use of pharmacotherapy especially anti-VEGF therapy, in the treatment of CNV due to uncommon causes.

RESULTS

Results from uncontrolled case series and controlled clinical trials have reported good efficacy and safety in using anti-VEGF agents including bevacizumab, ranibizumab, aflibercept and ziv-aflibercept in the treatment of CNV due to uncommon causes. Anti-VEGF has also been used in combination with verteporfin PDT and anti-inflammatory agents for treating CNV of various causes.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacotherapy with anti-VEGF agents is an effective treatment option for CNV due to uncommon etiologies.

Assessment of intravitreal ocriplasmin treatment for vitreomacular traction in clinical practice

PURPOSE

To assess treatment effects following intravitreal injection of ocriplasmin for vitreomacular traction (VMT), with or without full-thickness macular hole (FTMH), in real-life setting.

METHODS

This is a monocentric, retrospective, consecutive series of 82 eyes from 82 patients who underwent ocriplasmin treatment between July 2013 and December 2016. We included 57 eyes with pure VMT, 17 eyes with small FTMHs, and eight eyes with medium FTMHs. Primary outcome measures were VMT release and MH closure rates. Secondary outcomes were visual acuity (VA), morphological changes, and subjective visual impairment after 1, 3, and 6 months and at last follow-up.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 10 months, VMT release was achieved by pharmacologic vitreolysis in 57% of all eyes, whereas the macular hole closure rate was 32%. In those presenting with five or more positive prognostic factors (PPF), eyes with pure VMT showed nonsurgical traction release in 88%, and FTMHs were released in 93%, with a closure rate of 20%. Small FTMHs closed in 41% and medium FTMHs in 13%. The mean change in VA (LogMAR) was -0.07 ± 0.24 (median - 0.10) in all eyes. Subretinal fluid accumulation and ellipsoid zone changes were seen in 31% and 37% of all eyes, respectively. They were more frequent in eyes with traction release, but were self-limited.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-life setting, release of VMT by ocriplasmin injection can be achieved in the majority of eyes, relying on a strict patient selection. Closure of FTMHs rather correlates with hole diameter than with presence of PPF, and remains a rare finding in medium FTMHs.