Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Anatomical and functional results of ILM peeling vs. non-peeling in macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment

  • Retinal Disorders
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare anatomical and functional results between internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling and non-ILM peeling in macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD).

Methods

We completed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) due to macula-off RRD. ILM peeling (P) versus non-ILM peeling (NP) groups were compared regarding best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), anatomical success, endotamponade, concomitant scleral band placement and BCVA gain for epiretinal membranes (ERM) resubjected to PPV. Statistical significance was considered when p < 0.05.

Results

PPV was conducted in 352 patients, among which 43.5% (n = 153) were in the P group and 55.6% (n = 196) were in the NP group. Both groups had significant BCVA improvement during the study period (p < 0.001), but with no significant difference between them. Anatomical success was similar between P (84.2%) and NP (87.2%) groups. No difference was found with regard to endotamponade (p = 0.07) or concomitant scleral band placement (p = 0.43). The NP group developed subsequent ERM more frequently (p = 0.004), but BCVA gains for eyes requiring repeat PPV for ERM were not found (p = 0.14).

Conclusions

Although ERM formation and greater anatomical success are reasons to support the use of ILM peeling in RRD, we did not observe any anatomical or functional difference regarding ILM peeling or functional gain with secondary ERM peeling.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Steel DH, Joussen AM, Wong D (2018) ILM peeling in rhegmatogenous retinal detachment; does it improve the outcome? Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 256:247–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-017-3876-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Blanco-Teijeiro MJ, Rodriguez MB, Cuñarro RM, Fernández LP, Ruiz FR-O, Ces AP (2018) Effects of internal limiting membrane peeling during vitrectomy for macula-off primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Eur J Ophthalmol 28(6):706–713. https://doi.org/10.1177/1120672117750055

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Thompson JA, Snead MP, Billington BM (2011) National audit of the outcome of primary surgery for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Eye (Lond) 16(6):771–777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Martinez-Castillo V, Boixadera A, Distefano L (2012) Epiretinal membrane after pars plana vitrectomy for primary pseudophakic or aphakic rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: incidence and outcomes. Retina 32(7):1350–1355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cox MS, Azen SP, Barr CC (1995) Macular pucker after successful surgery for proliferative vitreoretinopathy. Silicone study report 8. Ophthalmology 102:1884–1891

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Council MD, Shah GK, Lee HC, Sharma S (2005) Visual outcomes and complications of epiretinal membrane removal secondary to rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Ophthalmology 112:1218–1221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Forlini M, Date P, Ferrari LM, Lorusso M, Lecce G, Verdina T, Neri G, Benatti C, Rossini P, Bratu A, D'Eliseo D, Ferrari TM, Cavallini GM (2018) Comparative analysis of retinal reattachment surgery with or without internal limiting membrane peeling to prevent postoperative macular pucker. Retina 38:1770–1776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Nam KY, Kim JY (2015) Effect of internal limiting membrane peeling on the development of epiretinal membrane after pars plana vitrectomy for primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Retina 35:880–885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Garweg JG, Deiss M, Pfister IB, Gerhardt C (2018) Impact of inner limiting membrane peeling on visual recovery after vitrectomy for primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment involving the fovea. Retina 0:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  10. Schulze-Bonsel K, Feltgen N, Burau H, Hansen L, Bach M (2006) Visual acuities "hand motion" and "counting fingers" can be qualified with the Freiburg visual acuity test. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47(3):1236–1240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chang JW, Kim JH, Kim SJ, Su YS (2014) Congenital Aniridia: long-term clinical course, visual outcome and prognostic factors. Korean J Ophthalmol 28(6):479–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Huang Q, Chen R, Lin X, Xiang Z (2017) Efficacy of carbonic anhydrase inhibitors in management of cystoid macular edema in retinitis pigmentosa: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 12(10):e0186180. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186180

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Fallico M, Russo A, Longo A, Pulvirenti A, Avitabile T, Bonfiglio V, Castellino N, Cennamo G, Reibaldi M (2018) Internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling during primary vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 13(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201010

  14. Hisatomi T, Tachibana T, Notomi S, Koyanagi Y, Murakami Y, Takeda A, Ikeda Y, Yoshida S, Enaida H, Murata T, Sakamoto T, Sonoda K-H, Ishibashi T (2017) Internal limiting membrane peeling-dependent retinal structural changes after vitrectomy in rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Retina 0:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  15. Yannuzzi NA, Callaway NF, Sridhar J, Smiddy WE (2018) Internal limiting membrane peeling during pars plana vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Retina 38:2081–2087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Foveau P, Leroy B, Berrod J-P, Conart J-B (2018) Internal limiting membrane peeling in macula-off retinal detachment complicated by grade B proliferative vitreoretinopathy. Am J Ophthalmol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2018.03.037

  17. Rezar S, Sacu S, Blum R, Eibenberg K, Schmidt-Erfurth U, Georgopoulos M (2015) Macula-on versus macula off pseudophakic rhegmatogenous retinal detachment following primary 23-gauge vitrectomy plus endotamponade. Curr Eye Res. https://doi.org/10.3109/02713683.2015.1031351

  18. Aras C, Arici C, Akar S, Muftuoglu G, Yolar M, Arvas S, Baserer T, Koyluoglu N (2009) Peeling of internal limiting membrane during vitrectomy for complicated retinal detachment prevents epimacular membrane formation. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 247(5):619–623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-008-1025-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Heimann H, Hellmich M, Bornfeld N, Bartz-Schmidt KU, Hilgers RD, Foerster MH (2001) Scleral buckling versus primary vitrectomy in rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (SPR study): design issues and implications. SPR study report no. 1. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 239:657–674

    Google Scholar 

  20. Azen SP, Scott IU, Flynn HWJ, Lai MY, Topping TM, Benati L (1998) Silicon oil in the repair of complex retinal detachments. A prospective observational multicenter study Ophthalmology 105:1587–1597

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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 28:744–748

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Carla Ferreira, Sandra Guimarães, Petra Gouveia, Joana Pires and José Costa assisted with data collection; Fernando Vaz is Head of the Ophthalmology Department.

Funding

No funding was received for this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Retina Department, Hospital de Braga, Sete Fontes, 4710-243, Braga, Portugal

    Keissy Sousa, Gil Calvão-Santos, Jorge Costa, Luís Mendonça, Rita Gentil & Nuno Lourenço Gomes

  2. Medical School of Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal

    Luís Ferreira

Authors
  1. Keissy Sousa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gil Calvão-Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jorge Costa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Luís Ferreira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Luís Mendonça
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rita Gentil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Nuno Lourenço Gomes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keissy Sousa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Authors Keissy Sousa, Gil Calvão-Santos, Jorge Costa, Luis Ferreira, Luís Mendonça, Rita Gentil and Nuno Lourenço Gomes declare that they have no conflict of interest. All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional (document no, 132/2017) and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

This type of study did not require informed consent. All data analyses were performed based on anonymized data, and none of the presented results can identify any patient.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sousa, K., Calvão-Santos, G., Costa, J. et al. Anatomical and functional results of ILM peeling vs. non-peeling in macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 258, 2105–2110 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-020-04775-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-020-04775-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation