Department of Ophthalmology, Liaquat University of Medical & Health Sciences, Jamshoro.
ISRA University Hospital, Hyderabad.
J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2020 Oct-Dec;32(4):450-453.
The objective of this study was to determine and compare the structural and functional outcome in eyes who underwent Pars Plana Vitrectomy (PPV) with Epiretinal Membrane (ERM) peeling alone verses combined Epiretinal membrane with Internal Limiting Membrane (ILM) peeling for Idiopathic Epiretinal Membrane along with the rate of recurrence.
It was an interventional randomized study, conducted at Al-Ibrahaim Eye Hospital, Malir, Karachi, for two-year period from 1st August 2016 to 1st August 2018. A total of forty-four eyes of 44 patients were divided into two groups equally. Group A contains 22 eyes of 22 patients who underwent PPV with ERM peeling alone. Group B also contains 22 eyes of 22 patients who underwent PPV with ERM and ILM peeling. The follow up period was 1 year. The patients having best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) less than 6/18 or symptom of metamorphopsia were included in our study. The best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) were recorded at 3, 6 and 12-month follow up.
In group A, the mean preoperative BCVA was 0.148 Log MAR (6/36 Snellen chart). The mean postoperative BCVA at 3, 6, and 12 months was 0.32 (6/18), 0.49 (6/12 P), and 0.50 (6/12), respectively. In group B, the mean preoperative best corrected visual acuity was 0.161 Log MAR (6/36 P Snellen chart). The mean postoperative BCVA at 3, 6, and 12 months was 0.36 (6/18 P), 0.51 (6/12), and 0.51 (6/12) respectively. The mean preoperative Central Macular Thickness (CMT) was 398.9 μm in group A and 384.7 μm in group B. The mean CMT in group A was 271.4, 236.7, and 229.8 μm at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. In group B, the mean CMT was 272.1, 233.8, and 220.4 μm at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. No significant difference was found in the visual outcome and central macular thickness between the two groups.
Pars plana vitrectomy along with ERM peeling alone or combined with ILM peeling is a safe procedure. Both methods were effective functionally and structurally in the treatment of idiopathic ERM, however, no significant difference and no recurrence of ERM was observed in either group.
本研究旨在确定和比较单纯行视网膜内界膜（ILM）剥除联合特发性视网膜内界膜剥除术（PPV）与单纯行特发性视网膜内界膜剥除术（PPV）的结构和功能结果，并比较复发率。
这是一项于 2016 年 8 月 1 日至 2018 年 8 月 1 日在卡拉奇马尔利的 Al-Ibrahaim 眼科医院进行的干预性随机研究。共有 44 名患者的 44 只眼被分为两组，每组 22 只眼。A 组 22 只眼的患者行单纯性 PPV 加 ERM 剥除术，B 组 22 只眼的患者行 PPV 加 ERM 和 ILM 剥除术。随访时间为 1 年。我们的研究纳入了最佳矫正视力（BCVA）低于 6/18 或出现变形的患者。在 3、6 和 12 个月的随访中记录最佳矫正视力（BCVA）和中央黄斑厚度（CMT）。
A 组中，术前平均 BCVA 为 0.148 LogMAR（6/36 Snellen 图表）。术后 3、6 和 12 个月时的平均 BCVA 分别为 0.32（6/18）、0.49（6/12 P）和 0.50（6/12）。B 组中，术前平均最佳矫正视力为 0.161 LogMAR（6/36 P Snellen 图表）。术后 3、6 和 12 个月时的平均 BCVA 分别为 0.36（6/18 P）、0.51（6/12）和 0.51（6/12）。A 组术前中央黄斑厚度（CMT）为 398.9μm，B 组为 384.7μm。A 组在术后 3、6 和 12 个月时的 CMT 平均值分别为 271.4、236.7 和 229.8μm。B 组在术后 3、6 和 12 个月时的 CMT 平均值分别为 272.1、233.8 和 220.4μm。两组间视力和中央黄斑厚度无显著差异。
单纯行玻璃体切除术加 ERM 剥除术或联合行 ILM 剥除术是一种安全的手术方法。两种方法在治疗特发性 ERM 时在功能和结构上均有效，但两组均未观察到 ERM 的显著差异和复发。
