4.6 Article

Vitrectomy and Internal Limiting Membrane Peeling With and Without Gas Tamponade for Myopic Foveoschisis

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 153, 期 2, 页码 320-326

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2011.07.007

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To compare clinical outcomes after vitrectomy and internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling, with and without gas tamponade, for the treatment of myopic foveoschisis. DESIGN: Retrospective, comparative, interventional case series. METHODS: In this retrospective clinical study, 17 eyes of 17 consecutive patients underwent vitrectomy and ILM peeling for treatment of myopic foveoschisis. Eyes were divided into 2 groups, those with gas tamponade (n = 9) and those without (n = 8). Gas tamponade was chosen according to the period and surgeon's discretion. The changes of foveal anatomy on preoperative optical coherence tomography (OCT) were not considered in the decision. Main outcome measures were the rate of resolution of myopic foveoschisis measured by OCT, the time interval until resolution of myopic foveoschisis, central foveal thickness, and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). RESULTS: After surgery, OCT showed a resolution of myopic foveoschisis in 8 eyes (88.9%) in the gas-treated group and in 6 eyes (75.0%) in the no-gas group. This difference between the groups was statistically insignificant (P = .576). The mean period until the resolution of myopic foveoschisis was 2.25 months in the gas-treated group and 4.50 months in the no-gas group (P = .011). The mean BCVA improved significantly in both the gas-treated and no-gas groups (P = .011 and P = .017, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Vitrectomy and ILM peeling without gas tamponade appears to be as effective in the treatment of myopic foveoschisis as vitrectomy with gas tamponade. However, eyes treated with gas tamponade showed more rapid resolution of myopic foveoschisis. (Am J Ophthalmol 2012;153:320-326. (C) 2012 by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据