Vitrectomy for diabetic macular edema and the relevance of external limiting membrane

Abstract Purpose To evaluate the relevance of external limiting membrane (ELM) on the visual and morphological results in eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME) that underwent pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with epiretinal membrane (ERM) and internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling. Methods Medical rec...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ivastinovic Domagoj, Haas Anton, Weger Martin, Seidel Gerald, Mayer-Xanthaki Christoph, Lindner Ewald, Guttmann Andreas, Wedrich Andreas
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2021-09-01
Series:BMC Ophthalmology
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-021-02095-y
id doaj-1fcb7bd4f98944e1bc6987108510c7c1
record_format Article
spelling doaj-1fcb7bd4f98944e1bc6987108510c7c12021-09-19T12:00:23ZengBMCBMC Ophthalmology1471-24152021-09-012111710.1186/s12886-021-02095-yVitrectomy for diabetic macular edema and the relevance of external limiting membraneIvastinovic Domagoj0Haas Anton1Weger Martin2Seidel Gerald3Mayer-Xanthaki Christoph4Lindner Ewald5Guttmann Andreas6Wedrich Andreas7Department of Ophthalmology, Medical University GrazDepartment of Ophthalmology, Medical University GrazDepartment of Ophthalmology, Medical University GrazDepartment of Ophthalmology, Medical University GrazDepartment of Ophthalmology, Medical University GrazDepartment of Ophthalmology, Medical University GrazDepartment of Ophthalmology, Medical University GrazDepartment of Ophthalmology, Medical University GrazAbstract Purpose To evaluate the relevance of external limiting membrane (ELM) on the visual and morphological results in eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME) that underwent pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with epiretinal membrane (ERM) and internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling. Methods Medical records of patients with DME who underwent PPV at our unit between January 2017 and December 2019 were reviewed. We assessed preoperative and postoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT) using spectral domain OCT (optical coherence tomography). Exclusion criteria were previous PPV; incomplete data; concomitant diseases including retinal vein occlusion, age-related macular degeneration, uveitis; and a follow-up of less than 12 months. The surgeries were performed using 23- or 27-gauge vitrectomy. The ELM was graded depending on its configuration (grade 0 = intact, grade 1 to 3: disruption of varying extent). Results Ninety-nine eyes were enrolled. The postoperative follow up averaged 23.7 months. The preoperative and final BCVA averaged 0.71 ± 0.28 and 0.52 ± 0.3 logMAR, respectively (p = 0.002). The CMT averaged 515.2 ± 209.1 μm preoperatively and 327 ± 66.1 μm postoperatively (p = 0.001). Eyes with intact ELM (n = 8) had a significantly better BCVA compared to those with ELM disruption (0.28 ± 0.14 vs. 0.7 ± 0.25 logMAR, p = 0.01). The final CMT was similar among the groups (intact ELM: 317 ± 54.6 μm; ELM disruption: 334 ± 75.2, p = 0.31). Conclusions PPV with ERM and ILM peeling is an effective treatment of DME. Eyes with intact ELM preoperatively had a significantly better final visual outcome. To maximize the benefit for patients with DME we recommend early PPV as long as ELM is intact.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-021-02095-yVitrectomyDiabetic macular edemaEpiretinal membraneExternal limiting membraneInternal limiting membrane
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Ivastinovic Domagoj
Haas Anton
Weger Martin
Seidel Gerald
Mayer-Xanthaki Christoph
Lindner Ewald
Guttmann Andreas
Wedrich Andreas
spellingShingle Ivastinovic Domagoj
Haas Anton
Weger Martin
Seidel Gerald
Mayer-Xanthaki Christoph
Lindner Ewald
Guttmann Andreas
Wedrich Andreas
Vitrectomy for diabetic macular edema and the relevance of external limiting membrane
BMC Ophthalmology
Vitrectomy
Diabetic macular edema
Epiretinal membrane
External limiting membrane
Internal limiting membrane
author_facet Ivastinovic Domagoj
Haas Anton
Weger Martin
Seidel Gerald
Mayer-Xanthaki Christoph
Lindner Ewald
Guttmann Andreas
Wedrich Andreas
author_sort Ivastinovic Domagoj
title Vitrectomy for diabetic macular edema and the relevance of external limiting membrane
title_short Vitrectomy for diabetic macular edema and the relevance of external limiting membrane
title_full Vitrectomy for diabetic macular edema and the relevance of external limiting membrane
title_fullStr Vitrectomy for diabetic macular edema and the relevance of external limiting membrane
title_full_unstemmed Vitrectomy for diabetic macular edema and the relevance of external limiting membrane
title_sort vitrectomy for diabetic macular edema and the relevance of external limiting membrane
publisher BMC
series BMC Ophthalmology
issn 1471-2415
publishDate 2021-09-01
description Abstract Purpose To evaluate the relevance of external limiting membrane (ELM) on the visual and morphological results in eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME) that underwent pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with epiretinal membrane (ERM) and internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling. Methods Medical records of patients with DME who underwent PPV at our unit between January 2017 and December 2019 were reviewed. We assessed preoperative and postoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT) using spectral domain OCT (optical coherence tomography). Exclusion criteria were previous PPV; incomplete data; concomitant diseases including retinal vein occlusion, age-related macular degeneration, uveitis; and a follow-up of less than 12 months. The surgeries were performed using 23- or 27-gauge vitrectomy. The ELM was graded depending on its configuration (grade 0 = intact, grade 1 to 3: disruption of varying extent). Results Ninety-nine eyes were enrolled. The postoperative follow up averaged 23.7 months. The preoperative and final BCVA averaged 0.71 ± 0.28 and 0.52 ± 0.3 logMAR, respectively (p = 0.002). The CMT averaged 515.2 ± 209.1 μm preoperatively and 327 ± 66.1 μm postoperatively (p = 0.001). Eyes with intact ELM (n = 8) had a significantly better BCVA compared to those with ELM disruption (0.28 ± 0.14 vs. 0.7 ± 0.25 logMAR, p = 0.01). The final CMT was similar among the groups (intact ELM: 317 ± 54.6 μm; ELM disruption: 334 ± 75.2, p = 0.31). Conclusions PPV with ERM and ILM peeling is an effective treatment of DME. Eyes with intact ELM preoperatively had a significantly better final visual outcome. To maximize the benefit for patients with DME we recommend early PPV as long as ELM is intact.
topic Vitrectomy
Diabetic macular edema
Epiretinal membrane
External limiting membrane
Internal limiting membrane
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-021-02095-y
work_keys_str_mv AT ivastinovicdomagoj vitrectomyfordiabeticmacularedemaandtherelevanceofexternallimitingmembrane
AT haasanton vitrectomyfordiabeticmacularedemaandtherelevanceofexternallimitingmembrane
AT wegermartin vitrectomyfordiabeticmacularedemaandtherelevanceofexternallimitingmembrane
AT seidelgerald vitrectomyfordiabeticmacularedemaandtherelevanceofexternallimitingmembrane
AT mayerxanthakichristoph vitrectomyfordiabeticmacularedemaandtherelevanceofexternallimitingmembrane
AT lindnerewald vitrectomyfordiabeticmacularedemaandtherelevanceofexternallimitingmembrane
AT guttmannandreas vitrectomyfordiabeticmacularedemaandtherelevanceofexternallimitingmembrane
AT wedrichandreas vitrectomyfordiabeticmacularedemaandtherelevanceofexternallimitingmembrane
_version_ 1717375301552439296