Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Efficiency comparison with fovea-sparing internal limiting membrane peeling and complete internal limiting membrane peeling for treating myopic traction maculopathy

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

Abstract

Purpose

To explore whether the efficacy of fovea-sparing internal limiting membrane peeling (FS-ILMP) is better than that of complete internal limiting membrane peeling (ILMP).

Methods

This retrospective clinical study included 34 cases (34 eyes) with myopic traction maculopathy collected from June 2017 to February 2019. Twenty-three-gauge (23-G) pars plana vitrectomy (23G PPV) was performed on all patients. In the FS-ILMP group, 18 eyes retained the internal limiting membrane (ILM) of about 1 to 1.5 papillary diameter centered on fovea centralis, while in the standard ILMP group, the ILM was completely removed from 16 eyes. The best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central foveal thickness (CFT), and other indexes were collected before and 6 months after surgery.

Results

There was no significant difference in baseline clinical characteristics between the two groups. CFT and BCVA were significantly improved in both FS-ILMP and standard ILMP group, but the postoperative BCVA of the FS-ILMP group was significantly better than that of the standard ILMP group (P < 0.001). Two cases of subretinal effusion in macula were recorded in the FS-ILMP group, and three eyes in the standard ILMP group developed macular holes after surgery. Although both treatments relieved the mechanical traction of macular fovea, the patients in the FS-ILMP group showed better clinical outcomes in various aspects.

Conclusion

These results improved our understanding of the clinical application of vitrectomy combined with preservation of ILM upon the fovea centralis, which might lay a foundation for in-depth study on the treatment of myopic traction maculopathy.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Verkicharla PK, Ohno-Matsui K, Saw SM (2015) Current and predicted demographics of high myopia and an update of its associated pathological changes. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 35:465–475. https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.12238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chen SJ, Cheng CY, Li AF, Peng KL, Chou P, Chiou SH, Hsu WM (2012) Prevalence and associated risk factors of myopic maculopathy in elderly Chinese: the Shihpai eye study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 53:4868–4873. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.12-9919

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hsu WM, Cheng CY, Liu JH, Tsai SY, Chou P (2004) Prevalence and causes of visual impairment in an elderly Chinese population in Taiwan: the Shihpai Eye Study. Ophthalmology 111:62–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2003.05.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Panozzo G, Mercanti A (2007) Vitrectomy for myopic traction maculopathy. Arch Ophthalmol 125:767–772. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.125.6.767

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Frisina R, Gius I, Palmieri M, Finzi A, Tozzi L, Parolini B (2020) Myopic traction maculopathy: diagnostic and management strategies. Clin Ophthalmol 14:3699–3708. https://doi.org/10.2147/opth.s237483

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Gómez-Resa M, Burés-Jelstrup A, Mateo C (2014) Myopic traction maculopathy. Dev Ophthalmol 54:204–212. https://doi.org/10.1159/000360468

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ruiz-Medrano J, Montero JA, Flores-Moreno I, Arias L, García-Layana A, Ruiz-Moreno JM (2019) Myopic maculopathy: current status and proposal for a new classification and grading system (ATN). Prog Retin Eye Res 69:80–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.preteyeres.2018.10.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Duan TQ, Tan W, Yang J, Li FL, Xiong SQ, Wang XG, Xu HZ (2020) Morphological characteristics predict postoperative outcomes after vitrectomy in myopic traction maculopathy patients. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 51:574–582. https://doi.org/10.3928/23258160-20201005-05

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kim CY, Kim MS, Kim KL, Woo SJ, Park KH (2020) Prognostic factors related with surgical outcome of vitrectomy in myopic traction maculopathy. Korean J Ophthalmol 34:67–75. https://doi.org/10.3341/kjo.2019.0115

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Wu J, Xu Q, Luan J (2020) Vitrectomy with fovea-sparing ILM peeling versus total ILM peeling for myopic traction maculopathy: a meta-analysis. Eur J Ophthalmol 1120672120970111. https://doi.org/10.1177/1120672120970111

  11. Kobayashi H, Kishi S (2003) Vitreous surgery for highly myopic eyes with foveal detachment and retinoschisis. Ophthalmology 110:1702–1707. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0161-6420(03)00714-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ho TC, Yang CM, Huang JS, Yang CH, Yeh PT, Chen TC, Ho A, Chen MS (2014) Long-term outcome of foveolar internal limiting membrane nonpeeling for myopic traction maculopathy. Retina 34:1833–1840. https://doi.org/10.1097/iae.0000000000000149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Iwasaki M, Miyamoto H, Okushiba U, Imaizumi H (2020) Fovea-sparing internal limiting membrane peeling versus complete internal limiting membrane peeling for myopic traction maculopathy. Jpn J Ophthalmol 64:13–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10384-019-00696-1

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Tadayoni R, Svorenova I, Erginay A, Gaudric A, Massin P (2012) Decreased retinal sensitivity after internal limiting membrane peeling for macular hole surgery. Br J Ophthalmol 96:1513–1516. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2012-302035

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee CL, Wu WC, Chen KJ, Chiu LY, Wu KY, Chang YC (2017) Modified internal limiting membrane peeling technique (maculorrhexis) for myopic foveoschisis surgery. Acta Ophthalmol 95:e128–e131. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.13115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Elwan MM, Abd Elghafar AE, Hagras SM, Abou Samra WA, Saleh SM (2019) Long-term outcome of internal limiting membrane peeling with and without foveal sparing in myopic foveoschisis. Eur J Ophthalmol 29:69–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1120672117750059

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Shimada N, Sugamoto Y, Ogawa M, Takase H, Ohno-Matsui K (2012) Fovea-sparing internal limiting membrane peeling for myopic traction maculopathy. Am J Ophthalmol 154:693–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2012.04.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kumagai K, Furukawa M, Ogino N, Larson E (2010) Factors correlated with postoperative visual acuity after vitrectomy and internal limiting membrane peeling for myopic foveoschisis. Retina 30:874–880. https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0b013e3181c703fc

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kodjikian L, Richter T, Halberstadt M, Beby F, Flueckiger F, Boehnke M, Garweg JG (2005) Toxic effects of indocyanine green, infracyanine green, and trypan blue on the human retinal pigmented epithelium. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 243:917–925. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-004-1121-6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Gandorfer A, Haritoglou C, Kampik A (2008) Toxicity of indocyanine green in vitreoretinal surgery. Dev Ophthalmol 42:69–81. https://doi.org/10.1159/000138974

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Awan A, Yang YC (2006) Shellfish allergy: a contraindication for fundus fluorescein angiography; misconception or reality. Eye (Lond) 20:1383–1384. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.eye.6702220

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Su Z, Ye P, Teng Y, Zhang L, Shu X (2012) Adverse reaction in patients with drug allergy history after simultaneous intravenous fundus fluorescein angiography and indocyanine green angiography. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 28:410–413. https://doi.org/10.1089/jop.2011.0221

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Kornblau IS, El-Annan JF (2019) Adverse reactions to fluorescein angiography: a comprehensive review of the literature. Surv Ophthalmol 64:679–693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.survophthal.2019.02.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Shiraki N, Wakabayashi T, Ikuno Y, Matsumura N, Sato S, Sakaguchi H, Nishida K (2020) fovea-sparing versus standard internal limiting membrane peeling for myopic traction maculopathy: a study of 102 consecutive cases. Ophthalmol Retina 4:1170–1180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oret.2020.05.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wang L, Wang Y, Li Y, Yan Z, Li Y, Lu L, Lu T, Wang X, Zhang S, Shang Y (2019) Comparison of effectiveness between complete internal limiting membrane peeling and internal limiting membrane peeling with preservation of the central fovea in combination with 25G vitrectomy for the treatment of high myopic foveoschisis. Medicine 98:e14710. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000014710

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Military Ophthalmological Center, General Hospital of Xinjiang Military Region, No. 754 Beijing Middle Road, Urumqi, 830054, Xinjiang, China

    Wen-Jian Xin, Ji-Ze Jiang, Lei-Bing Ji, Wen-Juan Lv, Yong-Xin Gu & Yun Xiao

Authors
  1. Wen-Jian Xin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ji-Ze Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lei-Bing Ji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wen-Juan Lv
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yong-Xin Gu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yun Xiao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

WX and JJ wrote the manuscript and interpreted the data. LJ, WL, and YG contributed to drafting of the manuscript and data analysis. YX conceived and designed the work. All the authors read and approved the final version of the submitted article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yun Xiao.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the ethics committee of General Hospital of Xinjiang Military Region. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article. The study protocol of this study conforms to the ethical guidelines of the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

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

Wen-Jian Xin and Ji-Ze Jiang contributed equally to this work and share first authorship.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 15 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xin, WJ., Jiang, JZ., Ji, LB. et al. Efficiency comparison with fovea-sparing internal limiting membrane peeling and complete internal limiting membrane peeling for treating myopic traction maculopathy . Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 260, 73–81 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-021-05320-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-021-05320-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation