Purpose: To evaluate and compare three different techniques of inverted internal limiting membrane (ILM) flap in the treatment of large idiopathic full-thickness macular hole. Methods: In a comparative interventional case series, 72 eyes from 72 patients with large (> 400 µm) full-thickness macular hole were randomly enrolled into three different groups: group Ahemicircular ILM peel with temporally hinged inverted flap; group Bcircular ILM peel with temporally hinged inverted flap; and group Ccircular ILM peel with superior inverted flap. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), anatomical closure rate, and ellipsoid zone (EZ) or external limiting membrane (ELM) defects were evaluated preoperatively, at week 1, and months 1, 3 and 6 after surgery. Results: There were 24 eyes in group A, 23 in group B, and 25 in group C. In all three groups, larger diameter macular hole was associated with worse preoperative visual acuity (r=0.625, P<0.001). Mean BCVA improved significantly in all three groups 6 months after surgery (0.91vs 0.55, p<0.001). 6 months after surgery, mean BCVA improved from 0.91 logMAR to 0.52±0.06 in group A, 0.90 to 0.53±0.06 in group B, and 0.91 to 0.55±0.11 in group C. In group A vs. B vs. C, improvement of BCVA was 0.380±0.04 vs. 0.383±0.04 vs. 0.368±0.11 logMAR, with no statistically significant difference between groups (P=0.660). The rate of successful hole closure was 87.5% vs. 91.3% vs. 100%. Although the closure rate was 100% in Group C (circular ILM peel with superiorly hinged inverted flap), this difference was not statistically significant (P=0.115). Conclusion: ILM peel with an inverted flap is a highly effective procedure for the treatment of large, full-thickness macular hole. Different flap techniques have comparable results, indicating that the technique can be chosen based on surgeon preference.
Background. To describe ocular manifestations, imaging characteristics, and genetic test results of autosomal recessive bestrophinopathy (ARB). The study design is an observational case series. Methods. Forty-eight eyes of 24 patients diagnosed with ARB underwent complete ophthalmic examinations including refraction, anterior and posterior segment examination, enhanced depth imaging optical coherence tomography (EDI-OCT), fluorescein angiography (FA), electroretinography (ERG), and electrooculography (EOG). Optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) and BEST1 gene sequencing were performed in selected patients. Results. The age at onset was 4–35 years (mean: 18.6 years). The male-to-female ratio was 0.45. All patients were hyperopic, except one with less than one diopter myopia. EOG was abnormal in 18 cases with near-normal ERGs. Six patients did not undergo EOG due to their young age. Eighteen patients (75%) had a thick choroid on EDI-OCT, of which three had advanced angle-closure glaucoma, 15 patients were hyperopic, and eight of them had more than four diopters hyperopia in both eyes. Macular retinoschisis was observed in 46 eyes of 23 patients (95%) with cysts mostly located in the inner nuclear layer (INL) to the outer nuclear layer (ONL). Of the 18 patients who underwent FA, mild peripheral leakage was seen in eight eyes of four patients (22%). Subfoveal choroidal neovascularization (CNV) was seen in three eyes of two patients (6%) that responded well to intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB). Seven mutations of the bestrophin-1 (BEST1) gene were found in this study; however, only two of them (p.Gly34 = and p.Leu319Pro) had been previously reported as the cause of ARB based on ClinVar and other literature studies. Conclusions. ARB can be presented with a wide spectrum of ocular abnormalities that may not be easily diagnosed. Pachychoroid can occur alongside retinal schisis and may be the underlying cause of angle-closure glaucoma in ARB. Our study also expands the pathogenic mutation spectrum of the BEST1 gene associated with ARB.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.