4.6 Article

Idiopathic Epiretinal Macular Membrane and Cataract Extraction: Combined versus Consecutive Surgery

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 149, Issue 2, Pages 302-306

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2009.09.011

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: To assess the functional and anatomic outcomes of cataract and idiopathic epiretinal macular membrane extraction in combined and consecutive surgeries. DESIGN: Multicenter, retrospective, comparative case series. METHODS: One hundred seventy-four patients (174 eyes) with an epiretinal macular membrane (ERM) and cataract were operated on in 1 or 2 sessions in 2 academic centers, Dijon University Hospital and Nancy University Hospital. Combined surgery (n = 109) and consecutive surgery (n = 65) were performed between 2005 and 2006. All patients underwent ERM and internal limiting membrane removal. Cataract extraction was performed with phacoemulsification followed by a posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation. The main outcome measures were near and far visual acuity and central macular thickness evaluated with optical coherence tomography. RESULTS: After a 12-month follow-up, the postoperative best-corrected visual acuities significantly improved in both the combined and the consecutive surgery groups (near and far vision in both groups, P < .0001). Similarly, the postoperative macular thickness significantly decreased in both groups (P < .0001). We noted no statistical differences between the visual acuity improvement in both groups (near vision, P = .54; far vision, P = .38). However, visual acuity recovery was quicker in the combined surgery group. CONCLUSIONS: Combined and consecutive surgeries are effective procedures to treat idiopathic ERM. The functional and anatomic results are equivalent in both procedures. (Am J Ophthalmol 2010;149:302-306. (C) 2010 by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available