4.2 Article

Pars Plana Vitrectomy and Internal Limiting Membrane Peeling in Epimacular Membranes: Correlation of Function and Morphology across the Macula

Journal

OPHTHALMOLOGICA
Volume 230, Issue 1, Pages 9-17

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000350233

Keywords

Spectral domain optical coherence tomography; Epiretinal membrane; Macular pucker; Photoreceptor layer; Microperimetry; Inner and outer segment

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To analyze the correlation between morphological and functional results 12 months after epiretinal membrane (ERM) surgery. Methods: 31 eyes from 31 consecutive patients with nnetamorphopsia and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) below 20/32 underwent a transconjunctival 23-gauge vitrectomy with ERM and internal limiting membrane peeling. Preoperatively and 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively, we assessed BCVA, microperimetry (MP-1) and spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). Photoreceptor inner and outer segment (IS/OS) was graded on SD-OCT images and correlated with microperimetry measurements in the fovea and parafoveal region. Results: The postoperative BCVA was significantly better in eyes with an intact IS/OS junction (p < 0.01). In addition, the mean defect depth was postoperatively decreased in the foveal and parafoveal area in eyes with an intact IS/OS junction. A correlation of SD-OCT IS/OS images and microperinnetry in eyes with improvement in BCVA of at least 2 lines revealed a statistically significant result for the parafoveal quadrants (p < 0.011 for SD-OCT and p < 0.005 for microperimetry) but not for the foveal area alone. Conclusions: The IS/OS regeneration in the parafoveal quadrants contributes significantly to the recovery of BCVA following ERM surgery. Consequently, functional and morphological tests of the macular area should not be limited to the fovea but should be extended to the parafoveal region. Copyright (C) 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available