Comparison of vitreoretinal disorders in fellow eyes of lamellar macular holes versus epiretinal membrane foveoschisis

Chehaibou, Ismaël; Manoharan, Niranjan; Govetto, Andrea; Francone, A; Sarraf, David; Hubschman, Jean‐Pierre

doi:10.1007/s00417-020-04950-y

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…15 Findings in similar studies comparing LMH and ERMF suggest that LMH has a unique pathogenesis, including more bilateral findings. 16 Other imaging modalities, such as fluorescein angiography, have been used to compare ERMF with LMH but did not show specific differences that would assist in the diagnosis or selection of surgical patients. 17 The percentage of patients with ERMF noted to have foveoschisis on OCT is small.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes of Pars Plana Vitrectomy With Membrane Peel for Lamellar Macular Holes and Related Conditions Using a New Optical Coherence Tomography Consensus Definition

Mohammed,

Thompson

2023

Journal of VitreoRetinal Diseases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To characterize the change in visual acuity (VA) in eyes treated with vitrectomy using the 2020 international consensus-based optical coherence tomography (OCT) definition of lamellar macular hole (LMH), macular pseudohole (MPH), and epiretinal membrane with foveoschisis (ERMF). Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed from 2000 to 2022 of patients who had vitrectomy for symptomatic decreased VA from LMH, MPH, or ERMF performed by the same surgeon at a community hospital. Preoperative spectral domain (SD-OCT) was reviewed to classify patients using the consensus guidelines. Primary outcomes were the mean change in best-corrected VA at 3 months, 1 year, and the final postoperative examination. Results: Fifty-one patients were included, 30 with LMH, 14 with MPH, and 7 with ERMF. The VA was 20/63 at baseline, 20/62 ( P = .79) 3 months postoperatively, 20/40 ( P = .003) at 1 year, and 20/52 ( P = .10) at the final examination for LMH; 20/64, 20/50 ( P = .16), 20/40 ( P = .040), and 20/40 ( P = .02), respectively, for MPH; and 20/53, 20/50 ( P = .42), 20/30 ( P = .03), and 20/38 ( P = .04), respectively, for ERMF. Subgroup analysis showed that eyes with LMH without ellipsoid zone disruption on SD-OCT improved from 20/57 at baseline to 20/39 ( P = .01) at the final examination. Conclusions: There was no significant improvement in VA at the final postvitrectomy examination in eyes with LMH, while there was significant improvement in eyes with MPH and ERMF. This supports surgery in selected eyes with MPH and ERMF but possibly not in eyes with LMH, unless OCT shows no ellipsoid zone disruption.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%