4.6 Article

Function and morphology of macula before and after removal of idiopathic epiretinal membrane

Journal

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
Volume 44, Issue 4, Pages 1652-1656

Publisher

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.02-0404

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE. To study the function and morphology of the macula of the eye before and after the removal of unilateral idiopathic epiretinal membrane (ERM). METHODS. Focal macular electroretinograms (fmERGs) elicited by a 15degrees stimulus were recorded in 37 eyes of 37 patients with a unilateral ERM. The amplitudes of the a- and b-waves and the oscillatory potentials (OPs) were compared with the corresponding waves in the normal fellow eyes before and after removal of the ERM. In 29 eyes followed up for more than 6 months after surgery, the fmERGs and foveal and parafoveal thicknesses, measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT), were evaluated. RESULTS. Before surgery, the mean amplitudes of all components of,the ftnERGs were significantly smaller than in the fellow eyes, with the decrease largest for the OPs, followed by the b-waves and then the a-waves. The eyes with less severely reduced a-wave amplitude (>70% of the fellow eyes) had significantly lower b-wave to a-wave (b/a) ratios. After surgery, the amplitudes of the b-wave and OPs were still significantly smaller in the affected eyes. The mean foveal and parafoveal thicknesses were significantly less after surgery; however, the thickness was still more in the affected eyes. The decrease of the OPs remained after surgery and correlated with increased parafoveal thickness (r = -0.460, P = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS. The decreased ftnERGs indicate that macular function is impaired in eyes with ERM. The decrease of the b-wave and OPs in the 29 eyes examined after vitrectomy may be due to the still thickened macular retina.

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