Comparison of the efficacy of vitrectomy combined with complete internal limiting membrane peeling and fovea-sparing internal limiting membrane peeling for high myopia macular foveoschisis
10.3760/cma.j.cn511434-20200102-00001
- VernacularTitle:玻璃体切割联合内界膜完全剥除和保留中心凹内界膜剥除手术治疗高度近视黄斑劈裂的疗效比较
- Author:
Li ZHU
1
;
Xiao CHEN
;
Ying YAN
;
Qin DING
;
Cheng HU
;
Zhijian HUANG
Author Information
1. 解放军中部战区总医院眼科，武汉 430070
- From:
Chinese Journal of Ocular Fundus Diseases
2020;36(7):509-513
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To observe and compare the outcomes of vitrectomy (PPV) combined with complete internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling and fovea-sparing ILM peeling for the high myopic foveoschisis (MF).Methods:A retrospective case study was performed. From June 2016 to June 2018, 31 eyes of 31 patients with high myopic MF diagnosed in Department of Ophthalmology of Central Theater Command General Hospital were included in the study. There were 9 males and 22 females, who were monocular. The mean age was 57.55±9.45 years. All patients underwent BCVA, diopter, spectral domain OCT and axial length measurement. Snellen visual acuity chart was used for BCVA examination, and which was converted into logMAR visual acuity. According to the surgical method, patients were divided into PPV combined with ILM complete removal group (group A) and PPV combined with retained fovea ILM group (group B), which were 16 patients (16 eyes) and 15 patients (15 eyes ), respectively. The mean logMAR BCVA was 1.03±0.33 in group A and 1.11±0.35 in group B. The mean CFT was 596.51±196.69 μm in group A and 578.33±200.18 μm. There were no statistically significant differences in age ( t=0.649, P=0.527), AL ( t=-0.639, P=0.533), logMAR BCVA ( t=-0.368, P=0.718), CFT ( t=0.228, P=0.823) and MF type ( P=0.576) between the two groups. The mean follow-up time after operation was 18.65±5.15 months. At 7 d, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery, and at the last follow-up, the same equipment and methods for relevant examinations. The changes of BCVA, CFT, macular hole and other complications were compared between the two groups. Comparison of BCVA and CFT between the two groups before and after operation was performed by paired t test. The count data were compared by using Fisher exact probability method. Results:At the last follow-up, MF was completely restored in 27 eyes (87.1%) of 31 eyes, partially restored in 4 eyes (12.9%). The mean logMAR BCVA of group A and Group B was 0.67±0.24 and 0.64±0.21, respectively. The average CFT was 126.25±36.61 μm and 134.27±25.29 μm, respectively. Compared with pre-operation, BCVA was obviously improved in both groups ( t=6.630, 9.260; P=0.000, 0.000), CFT was significantly decreased in both groups ( t=10.206, 8.799; P=0.000, 0.000). There were no statistically significant differences in logMAR BCVA and CFT between the two groups ( t=0.156, -0.924; P=0.878, 0.371). In group A, full-thickness macular hole occurred in 1 eye (6.3%), while no macular hole occurred in group B. There was no significant difference in macular hole incidence between two groups ( χ2=0.969, P=0.516). No intraocular hemorrhage, endophthalmitis and other complications occurred during the follow-up period. Conclusions:PPV combined with ILM peeling or fovea-sparing ILM peeling is effective in the treatment of high myopic MF. Both may contribute to improved MF closure rate and BCVA.
