COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Results of macular hole surgery with and without epiretinal dissection or internal limiting membrane removal.

Ophthalmology 2004 January
PURPOSE: To evaluate the results of idiopathic macular hole surgery with or without epiretinal dissection or peeling of the internal limiting membrane (ILM).

DESIGN: Retrospective consecutive nonrandomized comparative interventional trial.

PARTICIPANTS: One hundred seventy-two eyes of 162 patients with previously untreated idiopathic macular holes of <24 months duration.

INTERVENTION: All eyes were treated with pars plana vitrectomy by 1 surgeon using 1 of 3 techniques: no epiretinal dissection (116 eyes), epiretinal dissection (27 eyes), or ILM peeling (29 eyes).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Closure of the macular hole and visual acuity.

RESULTS: The macular hole was closed with 1 surgery in 92.9% of 56 eyes with epiretinal dissection/ILM peeling versus 79.3% of 116 eyes without dissection (P = 0.03) and was closed with 1 surgery in 85.1% of 27 eyes in the epiretinal dissection group compared with 100% of 29 eyes in the ILM peeling group (P = 0.05). Visual acuity improved 3 or more lines in 57.1% of 56 eyes in the epiretinal dissection/ILM peeling group compared with 38.8% of 116 eyes in the no dissection group 3 months postoperatively (P = 0.03). Visual acuity improved 3 or more lines at 3 months in the no dissection group in 32.2% of 87 eyes placed faceup for 24 hours compared with 58.6% of 29 eyes placed immediately prone postoperatively (P = 0.02). The visual and anatomic results of the no dissection and epiretinal dissection/ILM peeling groups were similar when comparing eyes in the no dissection group placed immediately prone with the epiretinal dissection/ILM peeling eyes also placed immediately prone. Visual improvement of 3 or more lines at 3 months occurred in 79.2% of 24 eyes in the epiretinal dissection group versus 44.8% of 29 eyes in the ILM peeling group (P = 0.01) in eyes with successful macular hole closure. Visual acuity results were similar in all subgroups at the final examination after reoperations.

CONCLUSIONS: The faceup position for 24 hours using adjuvants reduced the initial anatomic and visual outcomes of macular hole surgery. Internal limiting membrane peeling improved the likelihood of successful macular hole closure but reduced the amount of initial visual improvement at 3 months compared with epiretinal dissection alone. Final visual acuities were similar in all groups.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Group 7SearchHeart failure treatmentPapersTopicsCollectionsEffects of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors for the Treatment of Patients With Heart Failure Importance: Only 1 class of glucose-lowering agents-sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors-has been reported to decrease the risk of cardiovascular events primarily by reducingSeptember 1, 2017: JAMA CardiologyAssociations of albuminuria in patients with chronic heart failure: findings in the ALiskiren Observation of heart Failure Treatment study.CONCLUSIONS: Increased UACR is common in patients with heart failure, including non-diabetics. Urinary albumin creatininineJul, 2011: European Journal of Heart FailureRandomized Controlled TrialEffects of Liraglutide on Clinical Stability Among Patients With Advanced Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Review

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Read by QxMD is copyright © 2021 QxMD Software Inc. All rights reserved. By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app