Clinical Science
Comparision of the clinical effects on vitrectomy with or without fovea-sparing internal limiting membrane peeling
Xiuju Chen, Xiangdong Luo, Yaoyao Sun, Xiaoxin Li, Chun Zhang
Published 2020-01-10
Cite as Chin J Exp Ophthalmol, 2020, 38(1): 50-54. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-0160.2020.01.010
Abstract
ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical effects of vitrectomy with or without fovea-sparing internal limiting membrane peeling on macular foveoschisis (MF) secondary to pathologic myopia.
MethodsA non-randomized controlled study was adopted.Twenty-three patients (25 eyes) with refractive error ≥-8.00 DS and MF either combined with foveal retinal detachment or epi-macualr membrane or lamellar macular hole.The subjects were divided into non-internal limiting membrane peeling group (11 patients /11 eyes) who underwent triamcinolone (TA) assisted vitrectomy and fovea-sparing internal limiting membrane peeling group (12 patients/14 eyes) who underwent TA assisted vitrectomy with fovea-sparing internal limiting membrane peeling.The baseline data such as age, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), refractive error, axial length were not significant difference between the two group.Main outcomes were BCVA, remission of MF defined by optical coherence tomographyc OCT as well as complications.This study followed the Declaration of Helsinki and this protocol was approved by Ethic Committee of Xiamen Eye Center of Xiamen University (NO.XMYKZX-2016-YWS-007).
ResultsAll patients completed follow-up for more 6 months.BCVA (LogMAR) was 0.47±0.30 in non-internal limiting membrane peeling group and 0.40±0.33 in fovea-sparing internal limiting membrane peeling group, showing no significant difference between the two groups (t=0.66, P=0.52). Complete remission of MF was achieved in 22 eyes.The remission time in non-internal limiting membrane peeling group was 2.5 (1.8, 9.3) months, and 1.0 (1.0, 3.8) months in fovea-sparing internal limiting membrane peeling group, no statistical significance was obtained between the two groups (U=35.00, P=0.09). One eye had post-operative macular hole in non-internal limiting membrane peeling group, accounting for 9%, while in fovea-sparing internal limiting membrane peeling group, one eye had macular hole, accounting for 7%, and one eye had rhegmatogenous retinal detachment post-operatively, accounting for 7%.
ConclusionsMF can be resolved by vitrectomy while complete remission can achieved more quickly when combined with fovea-sparing internal limiting membrane peeling.
Key words:
Myopia, pathologic/surgery; Foveoschisis; Vitrectomy; Internal limiting membrane; Outcome
Contributor Information
Xiuju Chen
Xiamen Eye Center of Xiamen University, Xiamen 361000, China
Xiangdong Luo
Xiamen Eye Center of Xiamen University, Xiamen 361000, China
Yaoyao Sun
Department of Ophthalmology, People's Hospital of Peking University, Beijing 100044, China
Xiaoxin Li
Xiamen Eye Center of Xiamen University, Xiamen 361000, China
Chun Zhang
Xiamen Eye Center of Xiamen University, Xiamen 361000, China
