Foveal Abnormality associated with epiretinal Tissue of medium reflectivity and Increased blue-light fundus Autofluorescence Signal (FATIAS)

  • Roberto dell’OmoEmail author
  • Serena De Turris
  • Ciro Costagliola
  • Gianni Virgili
  • Ricarda G. Schumann
  • Matteo Cereda
  • Isabella D’Agostino
  • Ermanno dell’Omo
  • Ferdinando Bottoni
Retinal Disorders



To describe a distinct vitreomacular interface disorder (VMID) termed Foveal Abnormality associated with epiretinal Tissue of medium reflectivity and Increased blue-light fundus Autofluorescence Signal (FATIAS).


A case series including forty-seven eyes of 47 patients. The included eyes must present an irregular foveal contour on optical coherence tomography (OCT) and a pathologically increased autofluorescent signal at the fovea on blue-light fundus autofluorescence (B-FAF). Main outcome measures were morphologic characteristics of the lesions, logarithm of minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and central foveal thickness (CFT).


The following two types of FATIAS were identified: (1) the step type characterized by an asymmetric contour of the foveal pit and by a tissue of medium reflectivity on the foveal surface and (2) the rail type characterized by a shallow foveal pit and a rail of tissue of medium reflectivity on the foveal surface. The outer retinal bands were continuous in all cases. Both types presented with an area of increased B-FAF signal, usually bilobed in the step type and round and centered on the foveal pit in the rail type. LogMAR BCVA was 0.09 ± 0.1 and 0.1 ± 0.1 (P = 0.91), and CFT was 197.8 ± 9.7 and 202.2 ± 13.2 (P = 0.19) in the step and in the rail group, respectively.


We describe a distinct VMID named FATIAS. Two types of FATIAS may be appreciated with SD-OCT and B-FAF analyses, the step and the rail type. Both are characterized by abnormal foveal contour and autofluorescence signal.


Optical coherence tomography Fundus autofluorescence Abnormal foveal contour Epiretinal membrane Lamellar hole-associated epiretinal proliferation 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interests

R. dell’Omo declares that he has no conflict of interest; S. De Turris declares that she has no conflict of interest; C. Costagliola declares that he has no conflict of interest; G. Virgili declares that he has no conflict of interest; R.G. Schumann declares that she has no conflict of interest; M. Cereda declares that he is a consultant for Bayer; I. D’Agostino declares that she has no conflict of interest; E. dell’Omo declares that he has no conflict of interest; F. Bottoni declares that he is a consultant for Bayer, Novartis, and Alcon.

Ethical approval

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.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Koizumi H, Spaide RF, Fisher YL, Freund KB, Klancnik JM Jr, Yannuzzi LA (2008) Three-dimensional evaluation of vitreomacular traction and epiretinal membrane using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. Am J Ophthalmol 145:509–517. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sonmez K, Capone A Jr, Trese MT, Williams GA (2008) Vitreomacular traction syndrome: impact of anatomical configuration on anatomical and visual outcomes. Retina 28:1207–1214. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Duker JS, Kaiser PK, Binder S, de Smet MD, Gaudric A, Reichel E, Sadda SR, Sebag J, Spaide RF, Stalmans P (2013) The international vitreomacular traction study group classification of vitreomacular adhesion, traction, and macular hole. Ophthalmology 120:2611–2619. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gattoussi S, Buitendijk GHS, Peto T, Leung I, Schmitz-Valckenberg S, Oishi A, Wolf S, Deák G, Delcourt C, Klaver CCW, Korobelnik JF, European Eye Epidemiology (E3) consortium (2018) The European Eye Epidemiology spectral-domain optical coherence tomography classification of macular diseases for epidemiological studies. Acta Ophthalmol. Accessed 22 Sept 2018
  5. 5.
    Schmitz-Valckenberg S, Holz FG, Bird AC, Spaide RF (2008) Fundus autofluorescence imaging: review and perspectives. Retina 28:385–409. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    von Rukmann A, Fitzke FW, Gregor ZJ (1998) Fundus autofluorescence in patients with macular holes imaged with a laser scanning ophthalmoscope. Br J Ophthalmol 82:346–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bottoni F, Carmassi L, Cigada M, Moschini S, Bergamini F (2008) Diagnosis of macular pseudoholes and lamellar macular holes: is optical coherence tomography the “gold standard”? Br J Ophthalmol 92:635–639. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    dell’ Omo R, Virgili G, Rizzo S, De Turris S, Coclite G, Giorgio D, dell’ Omo E, Costagliola C (2017) Role of lamellar hole-associated epiretinal proliferation in lamellar macular holes. Am J Ophthalmol 175:16–29. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    dell’ Omo R, Vogt D, Schumann RG, De Turris S, Virgili G, Staurenghi G, Cereda M, Costagliola C, Priglinger SG, Bottoni F (2018) The relationship between blue-fundus autofluorescence and optical coherence tomography in eyes with lamellar macular holes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 59:3079–3087. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    dell’ Omo R, Cifariello F, dell’ Omo E, De Lena A, Di Iorio R, Filippelli M, Costagliola C (2013) Influence of retinal vessel printings on metamorphopsia and retinal architectural abnormalities in eyes with idiopathic macular epiretinal membrane. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 54:7803–7811. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pang CE, Spaide RF, Freund KB (2014) Epiretinal proliferation seen in association with lamellar macular holes: a distinct clinical entity. Retina 34:1513–1523. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stalmans P, Benz MS, Gandorfer A, Kampik A, Girach A, Pakola S, Haller JA, MIVI-TRUST Study Group (2012) Enzymatic vitreolysis with ocriplasmin for vitreomacular traction and macular holes. N Engl J Med 367:606–615. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gaudric A, Aloulou Y, Tadayoni R, Massin P (2013) Macular pseudoholes with lamellar cleavage of their edge remain pseudoholes. Am J Ophthalmol 155:733–742. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Govetto A, Dacquay Y, Farajzadeh M, Platner E, Hirabayashi K, Hosseini H, Schwartz SD, Hubschman JP (2016) Lamellar macular hole: two distinct clinical entities? Am J Ophthalmol 164:99–109. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zambarakji HJ, Schlottmann P, Tanner V, Assi A, Gregor ZJ (2005) Macular microholes: pathogenesis and natural history. Br J Ophthalmol 89:189–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Scheibe P, Zocher MT, Francke M, Rauscher FG (2016) Analysis of foveal characteristics and their asymmetries in the normal population. Exp Eye Res 148:1–11. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wong AC, Chan CW, Hui SP (2005) Relationship of gender, body mass index, and axial length with central retinal thickness using optical coherence tomography. Eye 19:292–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wagner-Schuman M, Dubis AM, Nordgren RN, Lei Y, Odell D, Chiao H, Weh E, Fischer W, Sulai Y, Dubra A, Carroll J (2011) Race- and sex-related differences in retinal thickness and foveal pit morphology. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 52:625–634. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grover S, Murthy RK, Brar VS, Chalam KV (2009) Normative data for macular thickness by high-definition spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (Spectralis). Am J Ophthalmol 148:266–271. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carpineto P, Nubile M, Toto L, Aharrh Gnama A, Marcucci L, Mastropasqua L, Ciancaglini M (2010) Correlation in foveal thickness measurements between spectral-domain and time-domain optical coherence tomography in normal individuals. Eye (Lond) 24:251–258. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Trieschmann M, Spital G, Lommatzsch A, van Kuijk E, Fitzke F, Bird AC, Pauleikhoff D (2003) Macular pigment: quantitative analysis on autofluorescence images. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 24:1006–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gass JD (1999) Müller cell cone, an overlooked part of the anatomy of the fovea centralis (1999). Arch Ophthalmol 117:821–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Syrbe S, Kuhrtb H, Gärtnerc U, Habermann G, Wiedemann P, Bringmann A, Reichenbach A (2018) Müller glial cells of the primate foveola: an electron microscopical study. Exp Eye Res 167:110–117. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberto dell’Omo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Serena De Turris
    • 2
  • Ciro Costagliola
    • 1
  • Gianni Virgili
    • 3
  • Ricarda G. Schumann
    • 4
  • Matteo Cereda
    • 5
  • Isabella D’Agostino
    • 5
  • Ermanno dell’Omo
    • 6
  • Ferdinando Bottoni
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Medicine and Health Sciences “Vincenzo Tiberio”University of MoliseCampobassoItaly
  2. 2.Eye ClinicPolytechnic University of MarcheAnconaItaly
  3. 3.Department of Translational Surgery and MedicineUniversity of FlorenceFlorenceItaly
  4. 4.Department of OphthalmologyLudwig-Maximilians-UniversityMunichGermany
  5. 5.Department of Biomedical and Clinical Science “Luigi Sacco,” Sacco HospitalUniversity of MilanMilanItaly
  6. 6.Eye Clinic “Villa Maria”CampobassoItaly

Personalised recommendations