December 2011, Volume 249, Issue 12, pp 1811-1819
Date: 10 Aug 2011
25-, 23-, and 20-gauge vitrectomy in epiretinal membrane surgery: a comparative study of 553 cases
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
To compare the safety and functional outcomes of 25-gauge and 23-gauge (G) micro-incision vitrectomy surgery (MIVS) instrumentation with the standard 20-G vitrectomy system in the treatment of epiretinal membranes (ERM).
A retrospective comparative study of 553 consecutive cases with epiretinal membrane who underwent pars plana vitrectomy. Twenty-gauge, 25-gauge and 23-gauge vitrectomy was performed respectively in 347, 91, and 115 eyes. Surgery duration, visual acuity improvement, intraocular pressure variation, intraoperative and postoperative complications were analyzed.
The mean surgical time in the 23-G group and in the 25-G group was shorter than in the 20-G group (P < 0.001). Visual improvement was higher 8 days postoperatively in the 25-G group than in the 20-G and 23-G groups (P = 0.035), but not at 6 weeks postoperatively (P = 0.186). In the 20-G group, the IOP increased significantly on the first day postoperatively (P < 0.001), while in the 23-G group, the IOP decreased on the first day postoperatively (P = 0.073). In the 25-G group, the IOP did not change significantly (P = 0.807). The incidence of complications was not statistically significant between the three groups. Retinal breaks were significantly related to the induction of posterior vitreous detachment, independent of the system gauge.
In ERM surgery, 23-G and 25-G (MIVS) systems are as safe and effective as the 20-G system, and significantly reduce surgical time. Although the 25-G system provides an earlier visual improvement, the 23- and 25- gauge systems are comparable, and the selection will depend on the surgeon’s preference.
Haas A, Seidel G, Steinbrugger I, Maier R, Gasser-Steiner V, Wedrich A, Weger M (2010) Twenty-three-gauge and 20-gauge vitrectomy in epiretinal membrane surgery. Retina 1:112–116CrossRef
Gupta OP, Weichel ED, Regillo CD, Fineman MS, Kaiser RS, Ho AC, McNamara JA, Vander JE (2007) Postoperative complications associated with 25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging 38:270–275PubMed
Charles S (2006) Debating the pros and cons of 23-g vs 25-g vitrectomy: the pros of 25-g vitrectomy. Retin Physician 3:24–25
Chung CP, Hsu SY, Wu WC (2001) Cataract formation after pars plana vitrectomy. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 17:84–89PubMed
Desai UR, Alhalel AA, Schiffman RM, Campen TJ, Sundar G, Muhich A (1997) Intraocular pressure elevation after simple pars plana vitrectomy. Ophthalmology 104:781–786PubMed
Wilensky JT, Goldberg MF, Alward P (1997) Glaucoma after pars plana vitrectomy. Trans Sect Ophthalmol Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol 83:114–121
Han DP, Lewis H, Lambrou FH Jr, Mieler WF, Hartz A (1989) Mechanisms of intraocular pressure elevation after pars plana vitrectomy. Ophthalmology 96:1357–1362PubMed
Sjaarda RN, Glaser BM, Thompson JT, Murphy RP, Hanham A (1995) Distribution of iatrogenic retinal breaks in macular hole surgery. Ophthalmology 102:1387–1392PubMed
Cohen SM, Flynn HW Jr, Murray TG, Smiddy WE (1995) Endophthalmitis after pars plana vitrectomy. The Postvitrectomy Endophthalmitis Study Group. Ophthalmology 102:705–712PubMed
- 25-, 23-, and 20-gauge vitrectomy in epiretinal membrane surgery: a comparative study of 553 cases
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology
Volume 249, Issue 12 , pp 1811-1819
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- Epiretinal membrane
- Visual improvement
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Centre Hospitalier National d’Ophtalmologie des XV–XX, 28 rue de Charenton, 75571, Paris, France