Efficacy of internal limiting membrane peeling combined with vitreous injection of mouse nerve growth factor for the treatment of macular hole in high myopia
10.3760/cma.j.cn511434-20211008-00562
- VernacularTitle:内界膜剥除联合玻璃体腔注射鼠神经生长因子治疗高度近视黄斑裂孔疗效分析
- Author:
Xiao YU
1
;
Zhipeng YOU
;
Shiwang WANG
Author Information
1. 南昌大学附属眼科医院, 南昌 330006
- Keywords:
Myopia, degenerative;
Retinal perforations;
Nerve growth factor;
Intravitreal injections;
Vitrectomy;
Internal limiting membrane peeling
- From:
Chinese Journal of Ocular Fundus Diseases
2022;38(6):484-490
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To observe the efficacy of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) combined with internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling and vitreous injection of mouse never growth factor (mNGF) in the high myopia macular hole (HMMH).Methods:A prospective study. Thirty-one patients (33 eyes) with HMMH diagnosed in Affiliated Eye Hospital of Nanchang University from August 2020 and February 2021 were selected. Before surgery, all included patients were subjected to a complete ophthalmologic evaluation including best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), optical coherence tomography (OCT), macular microperimetry and axial length measurement. The BCVA examination was carried out using the international standard visual acuity chart, which was converted into logarithm of minimum resolution angle (logMAR) visual acuity during statistics. The included subjects were accepted the treatment of PPV combined with ILM peeling and vitreous injection of mNGF (combined group) or PPV united with ILM peeling (simple group), 15 cases with 16 eyes, 16 cases with 17 eyes, respectively. There were no significant differences in logMAR BCVA ( t=0.836), macular hole (MH) diameter (t=0.657), visual acuity (VA) ( t=0.176), the missing length of external limting membrane (ELM) and ellipsoid zone (EZ) ( t=1.255, 0.966) between two groups ( P>0.05). The follow-up time was at least 6 months. The BCVA, closure rate of MH, integrity of ELM and EZ and recovery of VA in macular area were compared and observed between the two groups after surgery. The logMAR BCVA, VA, the deficient lengths of ELM and EZ at different time points were compared by independent-samples t-test between two groups and analysis of variance was used to compare the repeated measurement data of each group. Fisher test was performed for comparison of count data. Results:Six months after surgery, MH closure rates in the simple group and the combined group were 88.24% (15/17) and 93.75% (15/16), respectively, with no significant difference ( P=0.523). At 3 and 6 months after surgery, the integrity recovery of ELM in the combined group was better than that in the simple group, and the difference was statistically significant ( t=2.282, 3.101; P<0.05). At 1, 3 and 6 months after surgery, EZ deletion length in the combined group was lower than that in the simple group, and the difference was statistically significant ( t=1.815, 2.302, 2.784; P<0.05). Compared with 1 week after surgery, VA in macular area of the combined group increased at 1, 3 and 6 months, and the difference was statistically significant ( P=0.007, <0.001, <0.001). At 3 and 6 months after surgery, VA in macular area of affected eyes in the combined group was higher than that in the simple group, and the difference was statistically significant ( t=1.897, 2.250; P<0.05). There was an interaction effect between the surgical method and the follow-up time. The postoperative time was prolonged, and the VA in macular area was decreased in the simple group and increased in the combined group, with statistical significance ( F=12.963, P<0.001). The BCVA and BCVA changes in the two groups increased with the extension of postoperative time. The improvement of BCVA and the difference of BCVA changes in the combined group were significantly higher than those in the simple group at different time points after surgery, with statistically significant differences ( F=12.374, 21.807, 5.695, 4.095; P<0.05). Conclusion:PPV combined with ILM peeling and vitreous injection of mNGF is more effective than PPV with ILM peeling for HMMH, improving both anatomical and functional outcomes.
