Acta ophthalmologica · 2024
Vitrectomy in Small idiopathic MAcuLar hoLe (SMALL) study: Internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Marolo Paola, Caselgrandi Paolo, Fallico Matteo, Parisi Guglielmo, Borrelli Enrico, Ricardi Federico, Gelormini Francesco, Ceroni Luca, Reibaldi Michele, SMALL Study Group
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare vitrectomy with and without internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling in small idiopathic macular holes.
METHODS: Retrospective multicentre study including consecutive eyes with ≤250 μm idiopathic macular hole treated with vitrectomy. The primary outcome was hole closure rate. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) change, closure patterns on optical coherence tomography, rates of external limiting membrane (ELM) and ellipsoid zone (EZ) recovery, and rate of complications were also investigated.
RESULTS: In total, 693 eyes were included. Hole closure rate was 98% in the peeling and 85% in the no-peeling group (p < 0.001). At 12 months, mean BCVA change was 0.38 ± 0.22 logMAR in the peeling and 0.45 ± 0.21 logMAR in the no-peeling group (p = 0.02); 66% versus 80% of eyes had a U-shaped morphology, respectively; EZ recovery rate was 75% and 93%, respectively (p = 0.02). In the no-peeling group, eyes with a vitreomacular traction (VMT) showed a 96% closure rate, comparable to the peeling group (p = 0.40). The incidence of adverse events was similar except for dissociated optic nerve fibre layer (55% in the peeling vs. 9% in the no-peeling group, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: In small idiopathic macular holes, ILM peeling provides a higher closure rate compared to no-peeling; however, if a VMT is present closure rates are comparable. In closed macular holes, the no-peeling technique provides advantages in terms of visual outcome and anatomical recovery.
METHODS: Retrospective multicentre study including consecutive eyes with ≤250 μm idiopathic macular hole treated with vitrectomy. The primary outcome was hole closure rate. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) change, closure patterns on optical coherence tomography, rates of external limiting membrane (ELM) and ellipsoid zone (EZ) recovery, and rate of complications were also investigated.
RESULTS: In total, 693 eyes were included. Hole closure rate was 98% in the peeling and 85% in the no-peeling group (p < 0.001). At 12 months, mean BCVA change was 0.38 ± 0.22 logMAR in the peeling and 0.45 ± 0.21 logMAR in the no-peeling group (p = 0.02); 66% versus 80% of eyes had a U-shaped morphology, respectively; EZ recovery rate was 75% and 93%, respectively (p = 0.02). In the no-peeling group, eyes with a vitreomacular traction (VMT) showed a 96% closure rate, comparable to the peeling group (p = 0.40). The incidence of adverse events was similar except for dissociated optic nerve fibre layer (55% in the peeling vs. 9% in the no-peeling group, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: In small idiopathic macular holes, ILM peeling provides a higher closure rate compared to no-peeling; however, if a VMT is present closure rates are comparable. In closed macular holes, the no-peeling technique provides advantages in terms of visual outcome and anatomical recovery.