Marion Lam, Elise Philippakis, Ali Erginay, Alain Gaudric, Aude Couturier
{"title":"不同的术后解剖结果板层黄斑孔和视网膜前膜窝裂。","authors":"Marion Lam, Elise Philippakis, Ali Erginay, Alain Gaudric, Aude Couturier","doi":"10.1038/s41433-026-04857-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To compare the postoperative anatomical outcomes between eyes with lamellar macular hole (LMH), epiretinal membrane foveoschisis (ERM-FS) and macular pseudohole (MPH).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective single-centre study, including patients operated for LMH, ERM-FS or MPH, was conducted in a tertiary care centre in Paris, France. LMH eyes underwent vitrectomy with epiretinal proliferation peeling and tamponade, while ERM-FS and MPH eyes underwent ERM peeling without tamponade.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty-three eyes were included with a mean follow-up of 10.4 months: 16 with LMH, 50 with ERM-FS, and 17 with MPH. The mean preoperative central macular thickness (CMT) in LMH eyes (300 ± 43 µm) was thinner than normal and significantly differed from that in ERM-FS and MPH eyes (425 ± 80 µm vs. 380 ± 81 µm, p < 0.0001 and p = 0.02, respectively), which were thicker than normal. In LMH eyes, the mean postoperative CMT remained stable (285 ± 35 µm, p = 0.2) and thinner than in ERM-FS eyes, which was significantly decreased to 371 ± 46 µm (p < 0.0001). The mean postoperative central foveal thickness was significantly increased in ERM-FS eyes (from 191 to 271 µm, p < 0.0001) and in MPH eyes (from 189 to 288 µm, p < 0.0006), while stable compared to before surgery in LMH eyes (141 and 165 µm, p = 0.11) and thinner than normal.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Lamellar macular hole is a distinct vitreoretinal interface disorder from ERM-FS, with different anatomical postoperative outcomes. Eyes with LMH can improve vision after vitrectomy but its surgical management may differ from that of ERM-FS.</p>","PeriodicalId":12125,"journal":{"name":"Eye","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Distinct postoperative anatomical outcomes between lamellar macular holes and epiretinal membrane foveoschisis.\",\"authors\":\"Marion Lam, Elise Philippakis, Ali Erginay, Alain Gaudric, Aude Couturier\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41433-026-04857-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To compare the postoperative anatomical outcomes between eyes with lamellar macular hole (LMH), epiretinal membrane foveoschisis (ERM-FS) and macular pseudohole (MPH).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective single-centre study, including patients operated for LMH, ERM-FS or MPH, was conducted in a tertiary care centre in Paris, France. LMH eyes underwent vitrectomy with epiretinal proliferation peeling and tamponade, while ERM-FS and MPH eyes underwent ERM peeling without tamponade.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty-three eyes were included with a mean follow-up of 10.4 months: 16 with LMH, 50 with ERM-FS, and 17 with MPH. The mean preoperative central macular thickness (CMT) in LMH eyes (300 ± 43 µm) was thinner than normal and significantly differed from that in ERM-FS and MPH eyes (425 ± 80 µm vs. 380 ± 81 µm, p < 0.0001 and p = 0.02, respectively), which were thicker than normal. In LMH eyes, the mean postoperative CMT remained stable (285 ± 35 µm, p = 0.2) and thinner than in ERM-FS eyes, which was significantly decreased to 371 ± 46 µm (p < 0.0001). The mean postoperative central foveal thickness was significantly increased in ERM-FS eyes (from 191 to 271 µm, p < 0.0001) and in MPH eyes (from 189 to 288 µm, p < 0.0006), while stable compared to before surgery in LMH eyes (141 and 165 µm, p = 0.11) and thinner than normal.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Lamellar macular hole is a distinct vitreoretinal interface disorder from ERM-FS, with different anatomical postoperative outcomes. Eyes with LMH can improve vision after vitrectomy but its surgical management may differ from that of ERM-FS.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12125,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Eye\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2026-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Eye\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-026-04857-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eye","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-026-04857-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Distinct postoperative anatomical outcomes between lamellar macular holes and epiretinal membrane foveoschisis.
Background: To compare the postoperative anatomical outcomes between eyes with lamellar macular hole (LMH), epiretinal membrane foveoschisis (ERM-FS) and macular pseudohole (MPH).
Methods: A retrospective single-centre study, including patients operated for LMH, ERM-FS or MPH, was conducted in a tertiary care centre in Paris, France. LMH eyes underwent vitrectomy with epiretinal proliferation peeling and tamponade, while ERM-FS and MPH eyes underwent ERM peeling without tamponade.
Results: Eighty-three eyes were included with a mean follow-up of 10.4 months: 16 with LMH, 50 with ERM-FS, and 17 with MPH. The mean preoperative central macular thickness (CMT) in LMH eyes (300 ± 43 µm) was thinner than normal and significantly differed from that in ERM-FS and MPH eyes (425 ± 80 µm vs. 380 ± 81 µm, p < 0.0001 and p = 0.02, respectively), which were thicker than normal. In LMH eyes, the mean postoperative CMT remained stable (285 ± 35 µm, p = 0.2) and thinner than in ERM-FS eyes, which was significantly decreased to 371 ± 46 µm (p < 0.0001). The mean postoperative central foveal thickness was significantly increased in ERM-FS eyes (from 191 to 271 µm, p < 0.0001) and in MPH eyes (from 189 to 288 µm, p < 0.0006), while stable compared to before surgery in LMH eyes (141 and 165 µm, p = 0.11) and thinner than normal.
Conclusions: Lamellar macular hole is a distinct vitreoretinal interface disorder from ERM-FS, with different anatomical postoperative outcomes. Eyes with LMH can improve vision after vitrectomy but its surgical management may differ from that of ERM-FS.
期刊介绍：
Eye seeks to provide the international practising ophthalmologist with high quality articles, of academic rigour, on the latest global clinical and laboratory based research. Its core aim is to advance the science and practice of ophthalmology with the latest clinical- and scientific-based research. Whilst principally aimed at the practising clinician, the journal contains material of interest to a wider readership including optometrists, orthoptists, other health care professionals and research workers in all aspects of the field of visual science worldwide. Eye is the official journal of The Royal College of Ophthalmologists.
Eye encourages the submission of original articles covering all aspects of ophthalmology including: external eye disease; oculo-plastic surgery; orbital and lacrimal disease; ocular surface and corneal disorders; paediatric ophthalmology and strabismus; glaucoma; medical and surgical retina; neuro-ophthalmology; cataract and refractive surgery; ocular oncology; ophthalmic pathology; ophthalmic genetics.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
