Pathologic myopia (PM) is an ocular disorder characterized by a spherical equivalent (SE) of more than – 6.0 diopters (D) or by an axial length (AL) of more than 26.5 millimeters (mm). PM is associated with myopic maculopathy (MM). The ATN classification describes all the aspects of MM which regroups atrophic, tractional and neovascular consequences to the sclera, choroid and retina of highly myopic eyes. The advent of OCT allowed to define the ultrastructural characteristics of the tractional changes in MM, described by the term myopic traction maculopathy (MTM). They include foveoschisis/maculoschisis/retinoschisis (FS/MS/RS), retinal/foveal detachment (RD/FD), lamellar macular holes (LMH) and full-thickness macular holes (FTMH) with or without RD (MHRD). The MTM staging system (MSS) describes all foveal and retinal changes related to MTM and their natural history interpreting them as different stages of a single progressive disorder. The management of MTM can be just observation for the earliest cases with good vision or surgery for the severe stages with vision loss. There are two possible surgical approaches: ab externo, that acts on the alteration of the scleral shape and includes posterior scleral reinforcement and macular buckle. Ab interno, that targets the alteration of the foveal profile and consists in pars plana vitrectomy with removal of all the epiretinal tractions, maneuvers on the internal limiting membrane, and the use of intravitreal tamponade and laser. As they target two different sides of the same pathology, the two techniques have to be selected on the base of the MTM stage, single or combined.

No abstract

To analyse morpho-functional foveal changes in eyes with lamellar macular hole (LMH) by an integrated assessment of short-wavelength fundus autofluorescence (SW-FAF) and microperimetry (SW-FAF/microperimetry integrated assessment) before and after treatment with a technique of double-inverted flaps of epiretinal proliferation (EP) and internal limiting membrane (ILM). Methods: Clinical and tomographic parameters were best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), LMH size, central retinal thickness (CRT) and outer retinal layer integrity. SW-FAF/microperimetry integrated assessment allowed to analyse retinal sensitivity (RS) and FAF status of the fovea by an overlay of RS map on SW-FAF image. Follow-up was at baseline, 1, 3, 6 and 12 postoperative months. Results: Forty pseudophakic eyes. Hyper-FAF area was associated with larger LMH size (p = 0.0073) and inversely correlated with CRT (p = 0.021). Lower preoperative RS was observed in hyper-FAF than normo-FAF areas (p = 0.0117). External limiting membrane (ELM) defect was associated with worse BCVA (p = 0.0004). After surgery, BCVA improved (p = 0.001) and it was related to ELM recovery (p = 0.00483), hyper-FAF area decreased (p = 0.001), and RS increased (p = 0.440). Hyper-FAF points that normalized their FAF were associated with higher RS improvement compared to unchanged points. Conclusion: Short-wavelength fundus autofluorescence/microperimetry integrated assessment provides important information on the entity of damage of LMH and on postoperative recovery. Double-inverted EP and ILM flap technique is safe and effective for LMH treatment.

The authors describe the surgical techniques to implant a novel intraocular lens with artificial iris (Reper) in patients affected by traumatic aphakia and aniridia. Two surgical approaches are proposed: implantation by suture-loaded cartridge and “open sky” implantation combined with penetrating keratoplasty. The method of establishing the exact position of the scleral fixation points and the pre-assembly of the suture of Reper before its implantation are the main novel proposed surgical procedures. The rationale is to minimize surgical procedures in the anterior chamber and to prevent knot loosening and lens tilting. The simultaneous treatment of aphakia and aniridia with a single prosthesis, the stability of the Reper and the functional, anatomical and aesthetic outcomes obtained are the highlighted advantages in this study.

Prosthetic iris devices (PIDs) differ profoundly in the difficulty of implant and design. They provide improvement of glare and aesthetics, but surgical indication and PID choice should be evaluated accurately.