INTERNAL LIMITING MEMBRANE PEELING VERSUS NO PEELING IN PRIMARY VITRECTOMY FOR MACULA OFF RHEGMATOGENOUS RETINAL DETACHMENT: A COMPARATIVE STUDY

Awny, I., A. M, M. M., Mourtada, H.
{"title":"INTERNAL LIMITING MEMBRANE PEELING VERSUS NO PEELING IN PRIMARY VITRECTOMY FOR MACULA OFF RHEGMATOGENOUS RETINAL DETACHMENT: A COMPARATIVE STUDY","authors":"Awny, I., A. M, M. M., Mourtada, H.","doi":"10.21608/ejco.2018.163069","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To compare the visual outcome and the rate of epiretinal membrane formation after primary vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling Vs no peeling for patient with macula off retinal detachment. Patients and methods: This was a Prospective comparative uncontrolled case series. The study enrolled 30 eyes with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment with macula off subjected to primary vitrectomy, and classified into 2 groups, Group A cases subjected to primary vitrectomy without internal limiting membrane peeling and group B cases subjected to primary vitrectomy, with internal limiting membrane peeling, Assessment of best corrected visual acuity and rate of epiretinal membrane formation after removal of silicone oil had been done. Results: This study included 30 eyes of 30 patients, 16 (53.33 %) were males and 14 (46.67 %) were females, the mean age of studied patients was (43.37 ± 10.40) years old. There was no statistically significant difference in mean logMAR BCVA after silicone oil removal (1.18 ± 0.29 for group A versus 0.99 ± 0.38 for group B; P = 0.12).OCT done for all cases after silicone oil removal after 6 months and show that; epiretinal membrane with cystoid macular edema is formed in 5 cases in group A while ERM is not formed in any cases in group B (P = 0.04) , IS / OS line is interrupted in 6 cases in group A and in 3 cases (P = 0.43) as regarding foveal contour; it is lost in 5 cases and preserved in 10 cases in group A while in group B the foveal contour is preserved in 13 cases ,lost in 1 case and flat in 1 case (P = 0.06) , while comparing the mean of the central foveal thickness shows no statistically significant difference 295.73±129.46 for group A versus 237.6±47.60 for group B; P = 0.66. Conclusion: There was no statistically significant difference in mean visual acuity after silicone oil removal in both procedures however, the epiretinal membrane formation was absent in group B with ILM peeling in comparison to group A.","PeriodicalId":267572,"journal":{"name":"Egyptian Journal of Clinical Ophthalmology","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Egyptian Journal of Clinical Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21608/ejco.2018.163069","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the visual outcome and the rate of epiretinal membrane formation after primary vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling Vs no peeling for patient with macula off retinal detachment. Patients and methods: This was a Prospective comparative uncontrolled case series. The study enrolled 30 eyes with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment with macula off subjected to primary vitrectomy, and classified into 2 groups, Group A cases subjected to primary vitrectomy without internal limiting membrane peeling and group B cases subjected to primary vitrectomy, with internal limiting membrane peeling, Assessment of best corrected visual acuity and rate of epiretinal membrane formation after removal of silicone oil had been done. Results: This study included 30 eyes of 30 patients, 16 (53.33 %) were males and 14 (46.67 %) were females, the mean age of studied patients was (43.37 ± 10.40) years old. There was no statistically significant difference in mean logMAR BCVA after silicone oil removal (1.18 ± 0.29 for group A versus 0.99 ± 0.38 for group B; P = 0.12).OCT done for all cases after silicone oil removal after 6 months and show that; epiretinal membrane with cystoid macular edema is formed in 5 cases in group A while ERM is not formed in any cases in group B (P = 0.04) , IS / OS line is interrupted in 6 cases in group A and in 3 cases (P = 0.43) as regarding foveal contour; it is lost in 5 cases and preserved in 10 cases in group A while in group B the foveal contour is preserved in 13 cases ,lost in 1 case and flat in 1 case (P = 0.06) , while comparing the mean of the central foveal thickness shows no statistically significant difference 295.73±129.46 for group A versus 237.6±47.60 for group B; P = 0.66. Conclusion: There was no statistically significant difference in mean visual acuity after silicone oil removal in both procedures however, the epiretinal membrane formation was absent in group B with ILM peeling in comparison to group A.
黄斑孔源性视网膜脱离一期玻璃体切除术内限制膜剥离与不剥离的比较研究
目的:比较黄斑脱离性视网膜脱离患者行玻璃体切除术合并内限制性剥膜与不剥膜术后的视力及视网膜前膜形成率。患者和方法:这是一个前瞻性比较无对照病例系列。本研究选取30只行初次玻璃体切除术的孔源性视网膜脱离伴黄斑脱落患者,分为A组行初次玻璃体切除术不剥除内限制膜,B组行初次玻璃体切除术剥除内限制膜,评估最佳矫正视力及硅油去除后视网膜前膜形成率。结果:共纳入30例患者30只眼,其中男性16只(53.33%),女性14只(46.67%),平均年龄(43.37±10.40)岁。去除硅油后的平均logMAR BCVA差异无统计学意义(A组为1.18±0.29,B组为0.99±0.38;P = 0.12)。所有病例在去除硅油6个月后进行OCT检查,并显示;A组视网膜前膜形成囊样黄斑水肿5例,B组未形成ERM (P = 0.04), A组6例is / OS线中断,中央凹轮廓3例(P = 0.43);A组丢失5例,保存10例,B组中央凹轮廓保存13例,丢失1例,平坦1例(P = 0.06),而中央凹厚度的平均值A组(295.73±129.46)与B组(237.6±47.60)比较,差异无统计学意义;P = 0.66。结论:两种方法去除硅油后的平均视力差异无统计学意义,但与A组相比,B组有ILM剥落的视网膜前膜没有形成。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信