Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of vitreoretinal disorders in fellow eyes of lamellar macular holes versus epiretinal membrane foveoschisis

  • Retinal Disorders
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate and compare the rate and characteristics of vitreoretinal disorders in fellow eyes of lamellar macular holes (LMH) versus epiretinal membrane foveoschisis (ERMF).

Methods

Included patients in this retrospective study were divided into two groups based on spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) features of their primary eye: LMH (group A) and ERMF (group B).

Results

Ninety-four patients were enrolled: 59 (62.8%) in group A and 35 (37.2%) in group B. Fellow eyes in group A had a higher rate of retinal detachment (8/59 [13.6%] vs. 0/35 [0%], P = 0.024), and full-thickness macular hole (FTMH) (11/59 [18.6%] vs. 2/35 [5.7%], P = 0.079), compared with fellow eyes in group B. In group A, 4/59 patients (6.8%) showed a bilateral LMH while none from group B had a LMH in their fellow eye (0/35 [0%]), P = 0.293. Additionally, epiretinal proliferation was noted in 30/59 (50.8%) fellow eyes in group A versus 3/35 (8.6%) fellow eyes in group B, P < 0.001. Longitudinal data were available for 80/94 patients. Over a mean follow-up of 37.4 ± 29.9 months, 1/48 (2.1%) fellow eyes from group A developed a FTMH and 2/48 (4.2%) developed a LMH, while no FTMH or LMH occurred in fellow eyes of group B.

Conclusions

Fellow eyes of LMH showed a high rate of macular and peripheral vitreoretinal disorders. In addition, epiretinal proliferation was detected in a higher number of fellow eyes of LMH versus ERMF. These findings suggest a bilateral process in eyes of patients with LMH.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All de-identified and coded data of patients included in the study are available by request.

References

  1. Haouchine B, Massin P, Tadayoni R et al (2004) Diagnosis of macular pseudoholes and lamellar macular holes by optical coherence tomography. Am J Ophthalmol 138:732–739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Gaudric A, Aloulou Y, Tadayoni R et al (2013) Macular pseudoholes with lamellar cleavage of their edge remain pseudoholes. Am J Ophthalmol 155:733–742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Govetto A, Dacquay Y, Farajzadeh M et al (2016) Lamellar macular hole: two distinct clinical entities? Am J Ophthalmol 164:99–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gass JD (1975) Lamellar macular hole: a complication of cystoid macular edema after cataract extraction: a clinicopathologic case report. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 73:231–250

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Duker JS, Kaiser PK, Binder S et al (2013) The international vitreomacular traction study group classification of vitreomacular adhesion, traction, and macular hole. Ophthalmology 120:2611–2619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hubschman JP, Govetto A, Spaide RF et al (2020) Optical coherence tomography-based consensus definition for lamellar macular hole. Br J Ophthalmol https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-315432

  7. Pang CE, Spaide RF, Freund KB (2014) Epiretinal proliferation seen in association with lamellar macular holes: a distinct clinical entity. Retina 34:1513–1523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Compera D, Entchev E, Haritoglou C et al (2015) Correlative microscopy of lamellar hole-associated epiretinal proliferation. J Ophthalmol 2015:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Pang CE, Maberley DA, Freund KB et al (2016) Lamellar hole-associated epiretinal proliferation: a clinicopathologic correlation. Retina 36:1408–1412

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Itoh Y, Levison AL, Kaiser PK et al (2016) Prevalence and characteristics of hyporeflective preretinal tissue in vitreomacular interface disorders. Br J Ophthalmol 100:399–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lai T-T, Yang C-M (2018) Lamellar hole-associated epiretinal proliferation in lamellar macular hole and full-thickness macular hole in high myopia. Retina 38:1316–1323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Takahashi H, Inoue M, Itoh Y et al (2018) Macular dehiscence-associated epiretinal proliferation in eyes with full-thickness macular hole. Retina 00:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Nava U, Cereda MG, Bottoni F et al (2017) Long-term follow-up of fellow eye in patients with lamellar macular hole. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 255:1485–1492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ezra E, Wells JA, Gray RH et al (1998) Incidence of idiopathic full-thickness macular holes in fellow eyes. A 5-year prospective natural history study. Ophthalmology 105:353–359

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Dell’Omo R, Vogt D, Schumann RG et al (2018) The relationship between blue-fundus autofluorescence and optical coherence tomography in eyes with lamellar macular holes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 59:3079–3087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Schumann RG, Eibl KH, Zhao F et al (2011) Immunocytochemical and ultrastructural evidence of glial cells and hyalocytes in internal limiting membrane specimens of idiopathic macular holes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 52:7822–7834

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Pang CE, Spaide RF, Freund KB (2015) Comparing functional and morphologic characteristics of lamellar macular holes with and without lamellar hole-associated epiretinal proliferation. Retina 35:720–726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dell’Omo R, De Turris S, Filipelli M et al (2019) Foveal abnormality associated with epiretinal tissue of medium reflectivity and increased blue-light fundus autofluorescence signal (FATIAS). Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmo 257:2601–2612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-019-04451-7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bringmann A, Wiedemann P (2009) Involvement of Müller glial cells in epiretinal membrane formation. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 247:865–883

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. MacDonald RB, Randlett O, Oswald J et al (2015) Müller glia provide essential tensile strength to the developing retina. J Cell Biol 210:1075–1083

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Govetto A, Bhavsar KV, Virgili G et al (2017) Tractional abnormalities of the central foveal bouquet in epiretinal membranes: clinical spectrum and pathophysiological perspectives. Am J Ophthalmol 184:167–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lu Y-B, Pannicke T, Wei E-Q et al (2013) Biomechanical properties of retinal glial cells: comparative and developmental data. Exp Eye Res 113:60–65

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Fabian ID, Moisseiev E, Moisseiev J et al (2012) Macular hole after vitrectomy for primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Retina 32:511–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Compera D, Schumann RG, Cereda MG et al (2018) Progression of lamellar hole-associated epiretinal proliferation and retinal changes during long-term follow-up. Br J Ophthalmol 102:84–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Smiddy WE (2008) Macular hole formation without vitreofoveal traction. Arch Ophthalmol 126:737–738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Luna G, Keeley PW, Reese BE et al (2016) Astrocyte structural reactivity and plasticity in models of retinal detachment. Exp Eye Res 150:4–21

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Pfeiffer RL, Marc RE, Kondo M et al (2016) Müller cell metabolic chaos during retinal degeneration. Exp Eye Res 150:62–70

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Supported by an unrestricted grant from Research to Prevent Blindness and the Hess Foundation, which had no role in the design or conduct of this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Retina Division, Stein Eye Institute, University of California Los Angeles, 100 Stein Plaza, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Ismael Chehaibou, Niranjan Manoharan, David Sarraf & Jean-Pierre Hubschman

  2. Ophthalmology Department, Université de Paris, AP-HP, Hôpital Lariboisière, F-75010, Paris, France

    Ismael Chehaibou

  3. Ophthalmology Department, Fatebenefratelli-Oftalmico Hospital, ASST-Fatebenefratelli-Sacco, Milan, Italy

    Andrea Govetto

  4. Centro Oftalmológico Charles, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Anibal Andrés Francone

Authors
  1. Ismael Chehaibou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Niranjan Manoharan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrea Govetto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anibal Andrés Francone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David Sarraf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jean-Pierre Hubschman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean-Pierre Hubschman.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Jean-Pierre Hubschman: Alcon (C), Allergan (C), Bausch and Lomb (C), Novartis (C), and Carl Zeiss Meditec (C). David Sarraf: Amgen (C, F), Genetech-Roche (C, F), Heidelberg (F), Novartis (C, F), Optovue (C, F), Regeneron (F), Bayer (C, F), and Topcon (F) The following authors have no financial disclosures: Ismael Chehaibou, Niranjan Manoharan, Andrea Govetto, and Anibal Andrés Francone.

Ethics approval

This research study was conducted retrospectively from data obtained for clinical purposes. An IRB official waiver of ethical approval was granted from the University of California Los Angeles Office of Human Research Protection (IRB#16-000574).

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Code availability

Not Applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of a topical collection on Macular Holes

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chehaibou, I., Manoharan, N., Govetto, A. et al. Comparison of vitreoretinal disorders in fellow eyes of lamellar macular holes versus epiretinal membrane foveoschisis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 258, 2611–2619 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-020-04950-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-020-04950-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation