4.4 Article

FUNCTIONAL AND STRUCTURAL OUTCOMES AFTER FOVEA-SPARING INTERNAL LIMITING MEMBRANE PEELING FOR MYOPIC MACULAR RETINOSCHISIS BY MICROPERIMETRY

Journal

RETINA-THE JOURNAL OF RETINAL AND VITREOUS DISEASES
Volume 40, Issue 8, Pages 1500-1511

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000002627

Keywords

myopic macular retinoschisis; microperimetry; vitrectomy; fovea-sparing internal limiting membrane peeling; pathologic myopia

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To determine the morphological and physiological outcomes and safety of vitrectomy with fovea-sparing internal limiting membrane peeling for myopic macular retinoschisis (MRS). Methods: Highly myopic eyes (refractive error greater than -8.0 diopters or an axial length longer than 26.5 mm) with MRS that underwent vitrectomy with fovea-sparing internal limiting membrane peeling were analyzed retrospectively. The best-corrected visual acuity, retinal morphology, and the central and paracentral retinal sensitivities at 2 degrees/6 degrees by microperimetry were evaluated before and after the surgery. Postoperative microscotomas were also determined. Results: Thirty-three eyes with MRS; 16 eyes with and 17 eyes without a foveal retinal detachment, were studied. All 33 eyes had an improvement of MRS and foveal retinal detachment partially or completely after surgery, and none developed a full thickness macular hole. The postoperative best-corrected visual acuity, the central retinal sensitivity, and the retinal sensitivity at 2 degrees were significantly better than the preoperative values. Sixteen eyes developed postoperative microscotomas at paracentral 2 degrees and/or 6 degrees. Conclusion: The results showed that vitrectomy with fovea-sparing internal limiting membrane peeling is an effective and safe method to treat an MRS regardless of the presence of a foveal retinal detachment. However, careful follow-up should be performed to detect postoperative microscotomas.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available