CONVENTIONAL INTERNAL LIMITING MEMBRANE PEELING VERSUS INVERTED FLAP FOR SMALL-TO-MEDIUM IDIOPATHIC MACULAR HOLE: A Randomized Trial.
Journal
Retina (Philadelphia, Pa.)
ISSN: 1539-2864
Titre abrégé: Retina
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8309919
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 12 2022
01 12 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
10
9
2022
medline:
22
11
2022
entrez:
9
9
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare conventional internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling versus inverted flap technique in small-to-medium idiopathic macular hole. Eyes with ≤400 μ m idiopathic macular holes were randomized into the conventional ILM peeling group (25 eyes) and inverted flap group (25 eyes). A 12-month follow-up was considered. Macular sensitivity (MS) change detected with MP-1 microperimetry was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included best-corrected visual acuity change, closure rate, anatomical findings on optical coherence tomography such as U-shape foveal contour, restoration of external limiting membrane, and ellipsoid zone. In both groups, MS improved throughout the follow-up. Final MS was greater in the conventional ILM peeling group compared with the inverted flap group, being 16.6 ± 2.3 dB versus 14.9 ± 2.9 dB, respectively ( P = 0.026). In both groups best-corrected visual acuity improved throughout the follow-up, with a final best-corrected visual acuity of 0.19 ± 0.14 logMar (20/31 Snellen) in the conventional ILM group and 0.22 ± 0.11 logMar (20/33 Snellen) in the inverted flap group ( P = 0.398). Anatomical hole closure was achieved in all cases. No difference in optical coherence tomography findings was shown between the two groups. A better final MS was found in eyes undergoing conventional ILM peeling. Inverted flap technique has disadvantages compared with conventional peeling for the treatment of small-to-medium idiopathic macular holes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36084331
doi: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000003622
pii: 00006982-202212000-00002
pmc: PMC9665942
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT04498624']
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2251-2257Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Opthalmic Communications Society, Inc.
Références
Park DW, Sipperley JO, Sneed SR, et al. Macular hole surgery with internal-limiting membrane peeling and intravitreous air. Ophthalmology 1999;106:1392–1398.
Michalewska Z, Michalewski J, Adelman RA, Nawrocki J. Inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique for large macular holes. Ophthalmology 2010;117:2018–2025.
Rizzo S, Tartaro R, Barca F, et al. Internal limiting membrane peeling versus inverted flap technique for treatment of full-thickness macular holes: a comparative study in a large series of patients. Retina 2018;38:S73–S78.
Manasa S, Kakkar P, Kumar A, et al. Comparative evaluation of standard ILM peel with inverted ILM flap technique in large macular holes: a prospective, randomized study. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2018;49:236–240.
Shen Y, Lin X, Zhang L, Wu M. Comparative efficacy evaluation of inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique and internal limiting membrane peeling in large macular holes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Ophthalmol 2020;20:1–10.
Yamashita T, Sakamoto T, Terasaki H, et al. Best surgical technique and outcomes for large macular holes: retrospective multicentre study in Japan. Acta Ophthalmol 2018;96:e904–e910.
Iwasaki M, Kinoshita T, Miyamoto H, Imaizumi H. Influence of inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique on the outer retinal layer structures after a large macular hole surgery. Retina 2019;39:1470–1477.
Fallico M, Jackson TL, Chronopoulos A, et al. Factors predicting normal visual acuity following anatomically successful macular hole surgery. Acta Ophthalmol 2021;99(3):e324–e329.
Ch'ng SW, Patton N, Ahmed M, et al. The manchester large macular hole study: is it time to reclassify large macular holes? Am J Ophthalmol 2018;195:36–42.
Michalewska Z, Michalewski J, Cisiecki S, et al. Correlation between foveal structure and visual outcome following macular hole surgery: a spectral optical coherence tomography study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2008;246:823–830.
Fallico M, Reibaldi M, Avitabile T, et al. Intravitreal aflibercept for the treatment of radiation-induced macular edema after ruthenium 106 plaque radiotherapy for choroidal melanoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2019;257:1547–1554.
Gu C, Qiu Q. Inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique for large macular holes: a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2018;256:1041–1049.
Sborgia G, Niro A, Sborgia A, et al. Inverted internal limiting membrane-flap technique for large macular hole: a microperimetric study. Int J Retina Vitreous 2019;5:1–10.
Shin MK, Park KH, Park SW, et al. Perfluoro-n-octane-assisted single-layered inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique for macular hole surgery. Retina 2014;34:1905–1910.
Michalewska Z, Michalewski J, Dulczewska-Cichecka K, et al. Temporal inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique versus classic inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique. Retina 2015;35:1844–1850.
Chou H-D, Liu L, Wang C-T, et al. Single-Layer inverted internal limiting membrane flap versus conventional peel for small- or medium-sized full-thickness macular holes. Am J Ophthalmol 2022;235:111–119.
Chou H-D, Chong YJ, Teh WM, et al. Nasal or temporal internal limiting membrane flap assisted by sub-perfluorocarbon viscoelastic injection for macular hole repair. Am J Ophthalmol 2021;223:296–305.
Baumann C, Dervenis N, Kirchmair K, et al. Functional and morphological outcomes of the inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique in small-sized and medium-sized macular holes <400 µm. Retina 2021;41:2073–2078.
Park JH, Lee SM, Park SW, et al. Comparative analysis of large macular hole surgery using an internal limiting membrane insertion versus inverted flap technique. Br J Ophthalmol 2019;103:245–250.