Epiretinal membrane development after Ex-Press glaucoma filtration device implant: 2-year results of a case control study.

Cellophane macular reflex Epiretinal membrane Ex-Press glaucoma filtration device Glaucoma surgery Primary open-angle glaucoma

Journal

International ophthalmology
ISSN: 1573-2630
Titre abrégé: Int Ophthalmol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 7904294

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
17 Feb 2024
Historique:
received: 29 08 2023
accepted: 04 12 2023
medline: 17 2 2024
pubmed: 17 2 2024
entrez: 17 2 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The most common retinal complications after glaucoma surgery are choroidal detachment, hypotony maculopathy, malignant glaucoma, vitreous hemorrhage, endophthalmitis and retinal detachment. However, if glaucoma surgery is a risk factor for the ERM development needs to be clarified. This study aims to assess the incidence of epiretinal membrane (ERM) in 2 years of follow-up in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) treated with Ex-Press shunt implant. A prospective, consecutive, single-center, case-control study. We enrolled patients affected by POAG and scheduled for Ex-Press device implant with or without concomitant cataract surgery. The control group was the contralateral eyes which continues anti-glaucomatous eyedrops. Complete ophthalmologic evaluation and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography were performed before surgery, at 6 months and 24 months of follow-up. Eighty-two eyes of 41 consecutive patients, 18 males and 23 females with a mean age of 70, 29 ± 8,45, were analyzed at 24 months. 39.1% of eyes developed ERM: 29.3% were cellophane macular reflex (CMR) and 9.8% were pre-macular fibrosis (PMF). In the control group, 19.5% of eyes developed ERM: 17.1% were CMR and 2.4% were PMF. No statistically significant difference was reported (p = 0.121) between treated and control group. ERM development did not affect significantly the central foveal thickness (260.13 ± 35.01 μm at baseline, 265.03 ± 34.90 μm at 6 months and 275.18 ± 33.31 μm at 24 months) and macular volume (7.75 ± 0.43 mm Ex-Press implant may increase the ERM incidence regardless concomitant cataract surgery, accelerating or inducing a posterior vitreous detachment, such as other ocular surgical procedure. Nevertheless, the vast majority of ERM are CMR, not affecting the macular profile.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The most common retinal complications after glaucoma surgery are choroidal detachment, hypotony maculopathy, malignant glaucoma, vitreous hemorrhage, endophthalmitis and retinal detachment. However, if glaucoma surgery is a risk factor for the ERM development needs to be clarified. This study aims to assess the incidence of epiretinal membrane (ERM) in 2 years of follow-up in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) treated with Ex-Press shunt implant.
METHODS METHODS
A prospective, consecutive, single-center, case-control study. We enrolled patients affected by POAG and scheduled for Ex-Press device implant with or without concomitant cataract surgery. The control group was the contralateral eyes which continues anti-glaucomatous eyedrops. Complete ophthalmologic evaluation and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography were performed before surgery, at 6 months and 24 months of follow-up.
RESULTS RESULTS
Eighty-two eyes of 41 consecutive patients, 18 males and 23 females with a mean age of 70, 29 ± 8,45, were analyzed at 24 months. 39.1% of eyes developed ERM: 29.3% were cellophane macular reflex (CMR) and 9.8% were pre-macular fibrosis (PMF). In the control group, 19.5% of eyes developed ERM: 17.1% were CMR and 2.4% were PMF. No statistically significant difference was reported (p = 0.121) between treated and control group. ERM development did not affect significantly the central foveal thickness (260.13 ± 35.01 μm at baseline, 265.03 ± 34.90 μm at 6 months and 275.18 ± 33.31 μm at 24 months) and macular volume (7.75 ± 0.43 mm
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
Ex-Press implant may increase the ERM incidence regardless concomitant cataract surgery, accelerating or inducing a posterior vitreous detachment, such as other ocular surgical procedure. Nevertheless, the vast majority of ERM are CMR, not affecting the macular profile.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38367121
doi: 10.1007/s10792-024-02958-5
pii: 10.1007/s10792-024-02958-5
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

93

Informations de copyright

© 2024. The Author(s).

Références

Vieira L, Cabugueira A, Borges B, Carvalho V, Noronha M, Abegao Pinto L, Reina M, Dutra Medeiros M (2016) Secondary epiretinal membrane after trabeculectomy. J Glaucoma 25(6):e576-580
doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000326 pubmed: 26398580
Fung AT, Galvin J, Tran T (2021) Epiretinal membrane: a review. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 49(3):289–308
doi: 10.1111/ceo.13914 pubmed: 33656784
Sahoo NK, Balijepalli P, Singh SR, Jhingan M, Senthil S, Chhablani J (2018) Retina and glaucoma: surgical complications. Int J Retina Vitreous 4:29
doi: 10.1186/s40942-018-0135-x pubmed: 30202602 pmcid: 6124013
Loiudice P, Sartini F, Figus M, Nardi M, Posarelli C, Casini G (2021) Secondary epiretinal membrane after Ex-Press glaucoma filtration device implant. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 259(4):949–956
doi: 10.1007/s00417-020-05025-8 pubmed: 33259000
Liew G, Nguyen H, Ho IV, White AJ, Burlutsky G, Gopinath B, Mitchell P (2021) Prevalence of vitreoretinal interface disorders in an Australian population: the blue mountains eye study. Ophthalmol Sci 1(2):100019
doi: 10.1016/j.xops.2021.100019 pubmed: 36249297 pmcid: 9560650
Meuer SM, Myers CE, Klein BE, Swift MK, Huang Y, Gangaputra S, Pak JW, Danis RP, Klein R (2015) The epidemiology of vitreoretinal interface abnormalities as detected by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography: the beaver dam eye study. Ophthalmology 122(4):787–795
doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.10.014 pubmed: 25556116
Mitchell P, Smith W, Chey T, Wang JJ, Chang A (1997) Prevalence and associations of epiretinal membranes. The blue mountains eye study Australia. Ophthalmology 104(6):1033–1040
doi: 10.1016/S0161-6420(97)30190-0 pubmed: 9186446
Martinez-Castillo V, Boixadera A, Distefano L, Zapata M, Garcia-Arumi J (2012) Epiretinal membrane after pars plana vitrectomy for primary pseudophakic or aphakic rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: incidence and outcomes. Retina 32(7):1350–1355
doi: 10.1097/IAE.0b013e318242b965 pubmed: 22414957
Katira RC, Zamani M, Berinstein DM, Garfinkel RA (2008) Incidence and characteristics of macular pucker formation after primary retinal detachment repair by pars plana vitrectomy alone. Retina 28(5):744–748
doi: 10.1097/IAE.0b013e318162b031 pubmed: 18463520
Subhi Y, Forshaw T, Sorensen TL (2016) Macular thickness and volume in the elderly: a systematic review. Ageing Res Rev 29:42–49
doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2016.05.013 pubmed: 27262495
Xiao W, Chen X, Yan W, Zhu Z, He M (2017) Prevalence and risk factors of epiretinal membranes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies. BMJ Open 7(9):e014644
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014644 pubmed: 28951399 pmcid: 5623383
Bu SC, Kuijer R, Li XR, Hooymans JM, Los LI (2014) Idiopathic epiretinal membrane. Retina 34(12):2317–2335
doi: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000000349 pubmed: 25360790
Quinn NB, Steel DH, Chakravarthy U, Peto T, Hamill B, Muldrew A, Graham K, Elliott D, Hennessy R, Cruise S et al (2020) Assessment of the vitreomacular interface using high-resolution oct in a population-based cohort study of older adults. Ophthalmol Retina 4(8):801–813
doi: 10.1016/j.oret.2020.02.013 pubmed: 32335034
Schuster AK, Kluck AK, Korb CA, Stoffelns B, Nickels S, Schulz A, Münzel T, Wild PS, Beutel ME, Schmidtmann I et al (2020) Characteristics and pathologies of the vitreo-macular interface-results from the Gutenberg Health Study. Acta Ophthalmol 98(3):e273–e281
doi: 10.1111/aos.14285 pubmed: 31680456
Nyska A, Glovinsky Y, Belkin M, Epstein Y (2003) Biocompatibility of the Ex-PRESS miniature glaucoma drainage implant. J Glaucoma 12(3):275–280
doi: 10.1097/00061198-200306000-00017 pubmed: 12782849

Auteurs

Francesco Sartini (F)

Ophthalmology, Department of Surgical, Medical, Molecular Pathology and Critical Care Medicine, University of Pisa, Via Savi, 10, 56126, Pisa, Italy.

Martina Menchini (M)

Ophthalmology, Department of Surgical, Medical, Molecular Pathology and Critical Care Medicine, University of Pisa, Via Savi, 10, 56126, Pisa, Italy.

Alessandro Palma (A)

Ophthalmology, Department of Surgical, Medical, Molecular Pathology and Critical Care Medicine, University of Pisa, Via Savi, 10, 56126, Pisa, Italy.

Giamberto Casini (G)

Ophthalmology, Department of Surgical, Medical, Molecular Pathology and Critical Care Medicine, University of Pisa, Via Savi, 10, 56126, Pisa, Italy.

Michele Figus (M)

Ophthalmology, Department of Surgical, Medical, Molecular Pathology and Critical Care Medicine, University of Pisa, Via Savi, 10, 56126, Pisa, Italy. michele.figus@unipi.it.

Classifications MeSH