Inverted internal limiting membrane insertion versus standard internal limiting membrane peeling for macular hole retinal detachment in high myopia: one-year study
- 335 Downloads
The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of pars plana vitrectomy with inverted internal limiting membrane (ILM) insertion for macular hole retinal detachment (MHRD) in high myopia.
We studied 49 eyes of 49 consecutive patients who underwent vitrectomy for MHRD and were followed for more than 12 months postoperatively. Eyes that underwent vitrectomy with inverted ILM insertion from October 2013 to August 2015 were compared with eyes that underwent standard ILM peeling from October 2006 to September 2013. Macular hole closure rate, retinal reattachment, and postoperative visual acuity (VA) at 6 and12 months were retrospectively evaluated.
This series included 13 eyes in the inverted ILM insertion group and 36 eyes in the standard ILM peeling group. The MH closure rate was significantly better in the inverted ILM group (92 vs 39%) (P = 0.003). The initial and final retinal reattachment rates (92% vs. 86%, and 100% in both groups, respectively) did not differ significantly between groups. Although the mean preoperative VA did not differ significantly between the groups, postoperative VA tended to be better in the inverted ILM group at 12 months (P = 0.059). The rate of visual improvement of three or more lines in the inverted ILM insertion group (85%) was higher than that in the standard ILM peeling group (47%) at 12 months (P = 0.045).
Compared to conventional ILM peeling, inverted ILM insertion has a higher MH closure rate and tendency of better postoperative VA in patients with MHRD.
KeywordsMacular hole retinal detachment Internal limiting membrane peeling Inverted internal limiting membrane insertion
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or nonfinancial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study formal consent is not required.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
None of the authors has a proprietary interest or conflict of interest in any product mentioned in this article.
- 23.Matsumura T, Takamura Y, Tomomatsu T et al (2016) Comparison of the inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique and the internal limiting membrane peeling for macular hole with retinal detachment. PLoS One 11:e0165Google Scholar