Anatomical and functional outcomes of idiopathic macular hole surgery with fovea-sparing versus conventional internal limiting membrane peeling
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31288/oftalmolzh20235310Keywords:
vitrectomy, optical coherence tomography, idiopathic macular hole, internal limiting membrane, fovea-sparing technique, vitreoretinal surgeryAbstract
Purpose: To compare fovea-sparing and conventional internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling in idiopathic macular hole (IMH) surgery in terms of IMH closure type, hole closure incidence and visual outcome.
Material and Methods: The ILM was peeled around the IMH in the conventional ILM peeling group. In the fovea-sparing ILM peeling group, an ILM flap was created temporally to the IMH (with an ILM remnant left attached to the margins of the IMH), folded over the hole and stabilized with viscoelastic. Gas tamponade with 20% SF6 or 15% С3F8 was used. In the postoperative period, IMH closure pattern was assessed. Thicknesses of the outer retinal layers, inner retinal layers and retinal nerve fiber layer in the macular region were measured at 1 and 3 months.
Results: Totally, 70 patients (15 males and 55 females) had an IMH surgery in 71 eyes. The mean age (SD) was 65.7 (6.8) years. The median IMH duration (interquartile range (IQR)) was 3.0 (1.0-6.0) months, and the mean preoperative BCVA (standard deviation (SD)), 0.19 (0.16). Thirty-four eyes had an IMH surgery with conventional ILM peeling, and 37 eyes, an IMH surgery with fovea-sparing ILM peeling. The two groups were matched in terms of preoperative visual acuity and macular hole duration. IMH closure was achieved in 30/34 eyes (88.2%) in the conventional ILM peeling group and 33/37 eyes (89.2%) in the fovea-sparing ILM peeling group. Particularly, IMH closure was achieved in 13/17 eyes that received gas tamponade with 20% SF6 and 20/20 eyes that received that with 15% С3F8 in the latter group. The rate of correct IMH closure pattern was substantially higher (64% versus 47%) and median postoperative BCVA (IQR), significantly better (0.55 (0.35-0.7) versus 0.43 (0.35-0.6), р = 0.039) in the fovea-sparing ILM peeling group than in the conventional ILM peeling group. An analysis of variance found a significant effect of the type of IMH surgery and IMH closure pattern on the postoperative BCVA (F1 = 5.06, p = 0.027; F2 = 7.9, p = 0.0001). In both groups, we found a significant thinning of the total retinal thickness in the central 1-mm foveal zone at 3 months compared to 1 month after surgery. There was a significant thinning of the outer and inner retinal layers in the conventional ILM peeling group, and no significant thickness changes in the retinal layers in the fovea-sparing group.
Conclusion: Our fovea-sparing ILM peeling technique is an effective treatment option for IMHs, and when used with gas tamponade with 15% С3F8, enabled a primary surgery IMH closure rate of 100%.
References
McCannel CA, Ensminger JL, Diehl NN, Hodge DN. Population-based incidence of macular holes. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(7):1366-1369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.01.052
Evans JR, Schwartz SD, McHugh JD, Thamby-Rajah Y, Hodgson SA, Wormald RP, et al. Systemic risk factors for idiopathic macular holes: a case control study. Eye. 1998;12(Pt 2):256-259. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.1998.60
Kang HK, Chang AA, Beaumont PE. The macular hole: report of an Australian surgical series and meta-analysis of the literature. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2000;28(4):298-308. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-9071.2000.00329.x
Kelly NE, Wendel RT. Vitreous surgery for idiopathic macular holes. Results of a pilot study. Arch Ophthalmol. 1991;109(5):654-9. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1991.01080050068031
Eckardt C., Eckardt U., Groos S., Luciano L., Reale E. Entfernung der membrana limitans internabeimakulalöchern. Klinische und morphologische Befunde [Removal of the internal limiting membrane in macular holes. Clinical and morphological findings]. Ophthalmologe. 1997 Aug 94(8):545-51. German. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003470050156
Henrich PB, Monnier CA, Halfter W, Haritoglou C, Strauss RW, Lim RYH, et al. Nanoscale Topographic and Biomechanical Studies of the Human Internal Limiting Membrane. IOVS, May 2012; 53 (6):2561-70. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.11-8502
Candiello J, Balasubramani M, Schreiber EM, Cole GJ, Mayer U, Halfter W, et al. Biomechanical properties of native basement membranes. FEBS J. 2007;274(11):2897-2908. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-4658.2007.05823.x
Rahimy E, McCannel CA. Іmpact of internal limiting membrane peeling on macular hole reopening: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Retina. 2016 Apr;36(4):679-87. https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000000782
Ikeda T, Nakamura K, Sato T, Kida T, Oku H. Involvement of Anoikis in Dissociated Optic Nerve Fiber Layer Appearance. Int J Mol Sci. 2021 Feb 9;22(4):1724. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22041724
Liu J, Chen Y, Wang S, Zhang X, Zhao P. Evaluating inner retinal dimples after inner limiting membrane removal using multimodal imaging of optical coherence tomography. BMC Ophthalmol. 2018;18(1):155. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-018-0828-9
Runkle AP, Srivastava SK, Yuan A, Kaiser PK, Singh RP, Reese JL, et al. Factors Associated with Development of Dissociated Optic Nerve Fiber Layer (DONFL) Appearance in the PIONEER Intraoperative OCT Study. Retina. 2018 Sep; 38(Suppl 1): S103-S109. https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000002017
Hisatomi T, Notomi S , Tachibana T, Sassa Y , Ikeda Y, Nakamura T, et al. Ultrastructural changes of the vitreoretinal interface during long-term follow-up after removal of the internal limiting membrane. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014 Sep;158(3):550-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2014.05.022
Murphy DC, Fostier W , Rees J, Steel DH. Foveal sparing internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic macular holes: effects on anatomical restoration of the fovea and visual function. Retina. 2020 Nov;40(11):2127-2133. https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000002724
Ho TC, Yang CM, Huang JS, Yang CH, Chen MS. Foveola nonpeeling internal limiting membrane surgery to prevent inner retinal damages in early stage 2 idiopathic macula hole. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2014 Oct;252(10):1553-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-014-2613-7
Morescalchi F, Russo A, Bahja H, Gambicorti E, Cancarini A, Costagliola C, et al. Fovea-sparing versus complete internal limiting membrane peeling in vitrectomy for the treatment of macular holes. Retina. 2020 Jul 40(7):1306-1314. https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000002612
Aman K, Bruttendu M, Deeksha K, Ramadeep S. Papillomacular bundle sparing versus conventional internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic macular hole ≤400 µm. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology 71(3):p 927-932, March 2023. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_1666_22
Gass J.D. Reappraisal of biomicroscopic classification of stages of development of a macular hole. Am J Ophthalmol, 1995. Jun 119(6):752-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9394(14)72781-3
Rossi T, Bacherini D, Caporossi T, Telani S, Iannetta D, Rizzo S, Moysidis SN, Koulisis N, et al. Macular hole closure patterns: an updated classification Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2020 Dec;258(12):2629-2638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-020-04920-4
Michalewska Z, Michalewski J, Cisiecki S, Adelman R, Nawrocki J Correlation between foveal structure and visual outcome following macular hole surgery: a spectral optical coherence tomography study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2008 Jun;246(6):823-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-007-0764-5
Tyagi M, Sahoo NK, Belenje AS, Desai A. Fovea sparing internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic macular holes-Report of unfavourable outcomes of a surgical technique. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2023 May;33(3):1467-1472. https://doi.org/10.1177/11206721221145052
Hashimoto Y, Saito W, Fujiya A, Yoshizawa C, Hirooka K, Mori S, et al. Changes in Inner and Outer Retinal Layer Thicknesses after Vitrectomy for Idiopathic Macular Hole: Implications for Visual Prognosis PLoS One. 2015; 10(8): e0135925. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135925
Raja MSA, Saldana M, Goldsmith C, Burton BJL. Asymmetrical thickness of parafoveal retina around surgically closed macular hole. Br J Ophthalmol 2010;94:1543e1545. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2009.176693
Tada A, Machida S, Hara Y, Ebihara S, Ishizuka M, Gonmori M Long-Term Observations of Thickness Changes of Each Retinal Layer following Macular Hole Surgery. Hindawi Journal of Ophthalmology Volume 2021, Article ID 4624164, 10 pages . https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/4624164
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Umanets M. M., Rozanova Z. A., Khramenko N. I., Nevska A. O., Buallagui Ines
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) that allows users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author as long as they cite the source.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors hold copyright immediately after publication of their works and retain publishing rights without any restrictions.
- The copyright commencement date complies the publication date of the issue, where the article is included in.
DEPOSIT POLICY
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) during the editorial process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Post-print (post-refereeing manuscript version) and publisher's PDF-version self-archiving is allowed.
- Archiving the pre-print (pre-refereeing manuscript version) not allowed.
