Pneumatic Vitreolysis With Intravitreal Air for Focal Vitreomacular Traction

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.

Vitreomacular Traction Surgery from the DISCOVER Study: Intraoperative OCT Utility, Ellipsoid Zone Dynamics, and Outcomes

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

To characterize the clinical and ellipsoid zone (EZ) integrity outcomes in surgical intervention for symptomatic vitreomacular traction (VMT), and to evaluate the utility of intraoperative optical coherence tomography (OCT) during VMT surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a post-hoc analysis of eyes in the DISCOVER study undergoing pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with intraoperative OCT for VMT-related macular disease. Data were collected prospectively on feasibility and utility of intraoperative OCT, with follow-up lasting 12 months.

RESULTS

Forty-three eyes of 41 patients were included and mean visual acuity improved from 20/96 to 20/45 (P < .001). Intraoperative OCT provided information that impacted surgical decision-making in eight patients (18.6%). EZ integrity metrics significantly improved from baseline to 12 months and directly correlated with functional outcomes (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Retinal function and morphology improved significantly following PPV for VMT. Intraoperative OCT provided surgeon-perceived valuable information in select cases. Further research is needed to determine whether this information impacts overall surgical outcomes. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2021;52:544-550.].