Yıl: 2024 Cilt: 20 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 79 - 84 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.4274/BMJ.galenos.2023.2022.1-13 İndeks Tarihi: 10-06-2024

Comparison of Two Different Techniques in Macular Hole Surgery: 12-month Results of Clinical Practice

Öz:
Objective: To examine and compare the outcomes of complete internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling and inverted ILM flap techniques in patients with idiopathic full-thickness macular holes. Methods: Sixteen eyes of 16 patients operated on with the standard complete ILM peeling technique were included in group 1, and 12 eyes of 12 patients who had vitrectomy with the inverted ILM flap technique were included in group 2. Baseline and postoperative month 3, 6, and 12 best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) data and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (OCT) images were examined. Macular hole closure, foveal contour formation, ellipsoid zone integrity on OCT images, and BCVA improvement were analyzed. Results: The macular hole closure rate was 62.5% in group 1 and 91.7% in group 2, but the difference between the groups was not significant (p=0.18). An improvement was seen in BCVA after surgery in group 1, but the difference was not significant compared with the pre-operative BCVA (p=0.28). In group 2, the improvement from baseline BCVA at postoperative month 12 was significant (p=0.016). Conclusion: The macular hole closure rate was over 90% in the eyes that were operated on with the inverted ILM flap technique. BCVA was improved after surgery in both groups, and a significant improvement from baseline BCVA was seen at postoperative month 12 with the inverted ILM flap technique.
Anahtar Kelime:

Makula Deliği Cerrahisinde İki Farklı Tekniğin Karşılaştırılması: 12 Aylık Klinik Uygulama Sonuçları

Öz:
Amaç: İdiyopatik tam kat makula deliği olan bireylerde tam iç limitan membran (İLM) soyulması ve ters İLM flep tekniklerinin sonuçlarını incelemek ve karşılaştırmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Standart İLM soyma tekniği ile ameliyat edilen 16 hastanın 16 gözü grup 1’e, ters İLM flep tekniği ile vitrektomi uygulanan 12 hastanın 12 gözü grup 2’ye alındı. Başlangıç ve ameliyat sonrası 3. ay, 6. ay ve 12. ay en iyi düzeltilmiş görme keskinliği (EİDGK) verileri ve spektral-domain optik koherens tomografi (OKT) görüntüleri incelendi. Makula deliği kapanması, foveal kontur oluşumu, OKT görüntülerinde elipsoid zon bütünlüğü ve EİDGK’deki iyileşme analiz edildi. Bulgular: Makula deliği kapanma oranı grup 1’de %62,5 ve grup 2’de %91,7 idi; ancak gruplar arasındaki fark anlamlı değildi (p=0,18). Grup 1’de cerrahi sonrası EİDGK’de iyileşme görüldü ancak ameliyat öncesi EİDGK ile karşılaştırıldığında fark anlamlı değildi (p=0,28). Grup 2’de, postoperatif 12. ayda, başlangıca göre EİDGK’deki iyileşme anlamlıydı (p=0,016). Sonuç: Ters İLM flep tekniği ile opere edilen gözlerde makula deliği kapanma oranı %90’ın üzerinde idi. Ameliyattan sonra her iki grupta da EİDGK düzeldi ve ters İLM flep tekniği ile postoperatif 12. ayda başlangıca göre EİDGK’de anlamlı bir iyileşme görüldü.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
0
0
0
  • 1. Ho AC, Guyer DR, Fine SL. Macular hole. Surv Ophthalmol 1998;42:393-416.
  • 2. Woods DO. Idiopathic macular hole. J Ophthalmic Nurs Technol 1995;14:62-66.
  • 3. Ezra E. Idiopathic full thickness macular hole: natural history and pathogenesis. Br J Ophthalmol 2001;85:102-8.
  • 4. Evans JR, Schwartz SD, McHugh JD, Thamby-Rajah Y, Hodgson SA, Wormald RP, et al. Systemic risk factors for idiopathic macular holes: a case-control study. Eye (Lond) 1998;12:256-9.
  • 5. Gass JD. Idiopilthic senile macular hole. Its early stages and pathogenesis. Arch Ophthalmol 1988;106:629-39.
  • 6. Bainbridge J, Herbert E, Gregor Z. Macular holes: vitreoretinal relationships and surgical approaches. Eye (Lond) 2008;22:1301-9.
  • 7. Kelly NE, Wendel RT. Vitreous surgery for idiopathic macular holes. Results of a pilot study. Arch Ophthalmol 1991;109:654-9.
  • 8. Brooks HL Jr. Macular hole surgery with and without internal limiting membrane peeling. Ophthalmology 2000;107:1948-9.
  • 9. Foulquier S, Glacet-Bernard A, Sterkers M, Soubrane G, Coscas G. Etude de l'ablation de la limitante interne dans la chirurgie des trous maculaires idiopathiques de stade 3 et 4 [Study of internal limiting membrane peeling in stage-3 and -4 idiopathic macular hole surgery]. J Fr Ophtalmol 2002;25:1026-31.
  • 10. Sheidow TG, Blinder KJ, Holekamp N, Joseph D, Shah G, Grand MG, et al. Outcome results in macular hole surgery: an evaluation of internal limiting membrane peeling with and without indocyanine green. Ophthalmology 2003;110:1697-701.
  • 11. Tewari A, Almony A, Shah GK. Macular hole closure with triamcinolone-assisted internal limiting membrane peeling. Retina 2008;28:1276-9.
  • 12. Park DW, Sipperley JO, Sneed SR, Dugel PU, Jacobsen J. Macular hole surgery with internal-limiting membrane peeling and intravitreous air. Ophthalmology 1999;106:1392-8.
  • 13. Park DW, Sipperley JO, Sneed SR, Dugel PU, Jacobsen J. Macular hole surgery with internal-limiting membrane peeling and intravitreous air. Ophthalmology 2001;108:1471-6.
  • 14. Michalewska Z, Michalewski J, Adelman RA, Nawrocki J. Inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique for large macular holes. Ophthalmology 2010;117:2018-25.
  • 15. Michalewska Z, Michalewski J, Dulczewska-Cichecka K, Nawrocki J. Inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique for surgical repair of myopic macular holes. Retina 2014;34:664-9.
  • 16. Hayashi H, Kuriyama S. Foveal microstructure in macular holes surgically closed by inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique. Retina 2014;34:2444-50.
  • 17. Wakabayashi T, Fujiwara M, Sakaguchi H, Kusaka S, Oshima Y. Foveal microstructure and visual acuity in surgically closed macular holes: spectral-domain optical coherence tomographic analysis. Ophthalmology 2010;117:1815-24.
  • 18. Oh J, Smiddy WE, Flynn HW Jr, Gregori G, Lujan B. Photoreceptor inner/outer segment defect imaging by spectral domain OCT and visual prognosis after macular hole surgery. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010;51:1651-8.
  • 19. Villate N, Lee JE, Venkatraman A, Smiddy WE. Photoreceptor layer features in eyes with closed macular holes: optical coherence tomography findings and correlation with visual outcomes. Am J Ophthalmol 2005;139:280-9.
  • 20. Ooka E, Mitamura Y, Baba T, Kitahashi M, Oshitari T, Yamamoto S. Foveal microstructure on spectral-domain optical coherence tomographic images and visual function after macular hole surgery. Am J Ophthalmol 2011;152:283-90.
  • 21. Rizzo S, Tartaro R, Barca F, Caporossi T, Bacherini D, Giansanti F. Internal limiting membrane peeling versus inverted flap technique for treatment of full-thickness macular holes: A Comparative Study in A Large Series of Patients. Retina 2018;38(Suppl 1):73-8.
  • 22. Mete M, Alfano A, Guerriero M, Prigione G, Sartore M, Polito A, et al. Inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique versus complete internal limiting membrane removal in myopic macular hole surgery: A comparative study. Retina 2017;37:1923-30.
  • 23. Shen Y, Lin X, Zhang L, Wu M. Comparative efficacy evaluation of inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique and internal limiting membrane peeling in large macular holes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Ophthalmol 2020;20:14.
  • 24. Itoh Y, Inoue M, Rii T, Hiraoka T, Hirakata A. Correlation between length of foveal cone outer segment tips line defect and visual acuity after macular hole closure. Ophthalmology 2012;119:1438- 46.
  • 25. Scott IU, Moraczewski AL, Smiddy WE, Flynn HW Jr, Feuer WJ. Long-term anatomic and visual acuity outcomes after initial anatomic success with macular hole surgery. Am J Ophthalmol 2003;135:633-40.
  • 26. Pertile G, Mete M, Alfano A. Features Involved in the Healing Process of Macular Holes. JAMA Ophthalmol 2017;135:833-4.
  • 27. Silva N, Ferreira N, Pessoa B, Correia N, Beirão JM, Meireles A. Inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique in the surgical treatment of macular holes: 8-year experience. Int Ophthalmol 2021;41:499-507.
APA Akarsu Acar O, SONBAHAR O, Zirtiloglu S, Onur I (2024). Comparison of Two Different Techniques in Macular Hole Surgery: 12-month Results of Clinical Practice. , 79 - 84. 10.4274/BMJ.galenos.2023.2022.1-13
Chicago Akarsu Acar Ozge Pinar,SONBAHAR OZAN,Zirtiloglu Sibel,Onur Ismail Umut Comparison of Two Different Techniques in Macular Hole Surgery: 12-month Results of Clinical Practice. (2024): 79 - 84. 10.4274/BMJ.galenos.2023.2022.1-13
MLA Akarsu Acar Ozge Pinar,SONBAHAR OZAN,Zirtiloglu Sibel,Onur Ismail Umut Comparison of Two Different Techniques in Macular Hole Surgery: 12-month Results of Clinical Practice. , 2024, ss.79 - 84. 10.4274/BMJ.galenos.2023.2022.1-13
AMA Akarsu Acar O,SONBAHAR O,Zirtiloglu S,Onur I Comparison of Two Different Techniques in Macular Hole Surgery: 12-month Results of Clinical Practice. . 2024; 79 - 84. 10.4274/BMJ.galenos.2023.2022.1-13
Vancouver Akarsu Acar O,SONBAHAR O,Zirtiloglu S,Onur I Comparison of Two Different Techniques in Macular Hole Surgery: 12-month Results of Clinical Practice. . 2024; 79 - 84. 10.4274/BMJ.galenos.2023.2022.1-13
IEEE Akarsu Acar O,SONBAHAR O,Zirtiloglu S,Onur I "Comparison of Two Different Techniques in Macular Hole Surgery: 12-month Results of Clinical Practice." , ss.79 - 84, 2024. 10.4274/BMJ.galenos.2023.2022.1-13
ISNAD Akarsu Acar, Ozge Pinar vd. "Comparison of Two Different Techniques in Macular Hole Surgery: 12-month Results of Clinical Practice". (2024), 79-84. https://doi.org/10.4274/BMJ.galenos.2023.2022.1-13
APA Akarsu Acar O, SONBAHAR O, Zirtiloglu S, Onur I (2024). Comparison of Two Different Techniques in Macular Hole Surgery: 12-month Results of Clinical Practice. Bakırköy Tıp Dergisi, 20(1), 79 - 84. 10.4274/BMJ.galenos.2023.2022.1-13
Chicago Akarsu Acar Ozge Pinar,SONBAHAR OZAN,Zirtiloglu Sibel,Onur Ismail Umut Comparison of Two Different Techniques in Macular Hole Surgery: 12-month Results of Clinical Practice. Bakırköy Tıp Dergisi 20, no.1 (2024): 79 - 84. 10.4274/BMJ.galenos.2023.2022.1-13
MLA Akarsu Acar Ozge Pinar,SONBAHAR OZAN,Zirtiloglu Sibel,Onur Ismail Umut Comparison of Two Different Techniques in Macular Hole Surgery: 12-month Results of Clinical Practice. Bakırköy Tıp Dergisi, vol.20, no.1, 2024, ss.79 - 84. 10.4274/BMJ.galenos.2023.2022.1-13
AMA Akarsu Acar O,SONBAHAR O,Zirtiloglu S,Onur I Comparison of Two Different Techniques in Macular Hole Surgery: 12-month Results of Clinical Practice. Bakırköy Tıp Dergisi. 2024; 20(1): 79 - 84. 10.4274/BMJ.galenos.2023.2022.1-13
Vancouver Akarsu Acar O,SONBAHAR O,Zirtiloglu S,Onur I Comparison of Two Different Techniques in Macular Hole Surgery: 12-month Results of Clinical Practice. Bakırköy Tıp Dergisi. 2024; 20(1): 79 - 84. 10.4274/BMJ.galenos.2023.2022.1-13
IEEE Akarsu Acar O,SONBAHAR O,Zirtiloglu S,Onur I "Comparison of Two Different Techniques in Macular Hole Surgery: 12-month Results of Clinical Practice." Bakırköy Tıp Dergisi, 20, ss.79 - 84, 2024. 10.4274/BMJ.galenos.2023.2022.1-13
ISNAD Akarsu Acar, Ozge Pinar vd. "Comparison of Two Different Techniques in Macular Hole Surgery: 12-month Results of Clinical Practice". Bakırköy Tıp Dergisi 20/1 (2024), 79-84. https://doi.org/10.4274/BMJ.galenos.2023.2022.1-13