Anatomic and functional results of idiopathic macular epiretinal membrane surgery

Long-Term Visual Outcomes in Patients With Idiopathic Epiretinal Membrane Surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to assess long-term outcomes following surgical repair of idiopathic epiretinal membrane (ERM) with pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) and membrane peel (MP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective study evaluated patients with idiopathic ERM who underwent surgical repair at a single academic tertiary center with five to nine years of postoperative follow-up, assessing preoperative characteristics, surgical techniques, best visual acuity (BVA), and optical coherence tomography biomarkers at various time points.

RESULTS

The study involved 67 patients (72 eyes) with an average postoperative follow-up of 82.8 ± 18.8 months. Patients with cone outer segment tips integrity at initial presentation and 1-year follow-up and patients with external limiting membrane and ellipsoid zone integrity at 1-year follow-up were noted to have significantly better long-term visual acuity than those without. More than 85% of patients achieved a BVA > 70 seven years after surgical repair.

CONCLUSIONS

Vitreoretinal surgery for idiopathic ERM resulted in improved anatomical recovery and sustained visual acuity gain over long-term follow-up. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2024;55:70-77.].

Effect of internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic epiretinal membrane

Purpose

To further evaluate the necessity of internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling for patients with idiopathic epiretinal membrane (iERM).

Method

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CNKI from their inception up to August 24, 2021. Eligible meta-analyses comparing iERM removal with and without ILM peeling were included. AMSTAR and GRADE classification was used to assess the methodological quality of each study and the quality for each outcome, respectively. The primary outcomes were best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and recurrence.

Results

10 meta-analyses were included. 75.9% of studies revealed no statistically significant difference in BCVA between the groups, while only 10.3% showed better BCVA favorable to additional ILM peeling. 54.2% reported no significant difference in CMT between the groups, followed by 41.7% showing thicker CMT due to additional ILM peeling. Compared to iERM removal alone, additional ILM peeling provided a lower recurrence rate in 66.7% of studies.

Conclusion

ILM peeling could significantly reduce recurrence rate, but not significantly improve the recovery of visual outcome or decrease the thickness of central macula.

WITH OR WITHOUT INTERNAL LIMITING MEMBRANE PEELING FOR IDIOPATHIC EPIRETINAL MEMBRANE: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

To clarify whether internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling provides better outcomes for patients with idiopathic epiretinal membrane.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials comparing epiretinal membrane removal with and without ILM peeling were searched in Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and CNKI before April 15, 2020. The pooled mean difference (MD) for best-corrected visual acuity, central macular thickness, and odds ratio for recurrence were calculated.

RESULTS

Eight randomized controlled trials involving 422 eyes were included. No significant difference in best-corrected visual acuity (final follow-up: MD, 0.03 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [1.5 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters]; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.04 to 0.09 [-4.5 to 2 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters]; P = 0.40) or recurrence rate (odds ratio, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.04-1.05; P = 0.06) between the groups was observed. However, patients with ILM peeling presented thicker central macular thickness at 3 months (MD, 16.36; 95% CI, 1.26-31.46; P = 0.03), 6 months (MD, 22.64; 95% CI, 10.29-34.98; P = 0.0003) and the final follow-up (MD, 25.87; 95% CI, 13.96-37.79; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The study showed that ILM peeling did not significantly improve the postoperative visual outcome or decrease recurrence, but result in thicker central macular thickness, indicating that it is inessential for idiopathic epiretinal membrane.