Double Peeling During Vitrectomy for Macular Pucker

Epiretinal membranes are commonly encountered in retinal practice, and they result in decreased vision. The present work addresses whether peeling of the internal limiting membrane is necessary during vitrectomy for macular pucker. We performed a retrospective analysis to investigate the effects of “single peeling,” in which only the epiretinal membrane was peeled, and “double peeling,” in which the internal limiting membrane was also stained and peeled. Although significantly more patients in the single-peeling group had an epiretinal membrane remaining in the central fovea postoperatively, visual acuity was not found to differ between the 2 groups in the short term. Patients who had an epiretinal membrane for more than 18 months had significantly worse visual acuity outcomes. Unexpectedly, there was a greater proportional decrease in central macular thickness in the single-peeling group than in the double peeling group, a finding that deserves further study.

[1]  M. Sebag,et al.  Trypan blue-assisted peeling of the internal limiting membrane during macular hole surgery. , 2003, American journal of ophthalmology.

[2]  N. Alagöz,et al.  Retinal thickness change in relation to visual acuity improvement after 23-gauge vitrectomy for idiopathic epimacular membrane , 2011, Eye.

[3]  S. D. Bustros,et al.  Vitrectomy for idiopathic epiretinal membranes causing macular pucker. , 1988, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[4]  R. Zawadzki,et al.  Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography of eyes with idiopathic epiretinal membrane: correlation between macular morphology and visual function , 2011, Eye.

[5]  M. Perrier,et al.  Trypan internetadvance publication at ajo.com Dec 11, 2002. Blue–assisted peeling of the internal limiting membrane during macular hole surgery , 2003 .

[6]  M. Trese,et al.  Removal of epimacular membranes. , 1985, Ophthalmology.

[7]  C. Haritoglou,et al.  STAINING OF THE INTERNAL LIMITING MEMBRANE WITH INTRAVITREAL TRIAMCINOLONE ACETONIDE , 2005, Retina.

[8]  Y. Mizutani,et al.  Double staining with brilliant blue G and double peeling for epiretinal membranes. , 2009, Ophthalmology.

[9]  C. Pournaras,et al.  Idiopathic Macular Epiretinal Membrane Surgery and ILM Peeling: Anatomical and Functional Outcomes , 2011, Seminars in ophthalmology.

[10]  W. Green,et al.  Idiopathic Epiretinal Membranes: Ultrastructural Characteristics and Clinicopathologic Correlation , 1989, Ophthalmology.

[11]  P. Steven,et al.  Secondary paracentral retinal holes following internal limiting membrane removal , 2006, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[12]  Y. Goto,et al.  BRILLIANT BLUE G SELECTIVELY STAINS THE INTERNAL LIMITING MEMBRANE/BRILLIANT BLUE G–ASSISTED MEMBRANE PEELING , 2006, Retina.

[13]  I. Boniuk,et al.  Surgical management of premacular fibroplasia. , 1988, Archives of ophthalmology.

[14]  F. Pichi,et al.  SWELLING OF THE ARCUATE NERVE FIBER LAYER AFTER INTERNAL LIMITING MEMBRANE PEELING , 2012, Retina.

[15]  S. Ohno,et al.  Staining of internal limiting membrane in macular hole surgery. , 2000, Archives of ophthalmology.

[16]  A. Kampik,et al.  Sequential epiretinal membrane removal with internal limiting membrane peeling in brilliant blue G-assisted macular surgery , 2010, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[17]  J. Sipperley,et al.  Macular pucker removal with and without internal limiting membrane peeling: pilot study. , 2003, Ophthalmology.