4.6 Review

Anatomical and visual outcome after vitrectomy with triamcinolone acedonide-assisted epiretinal membrane removal in highly myopic eyes with retinal detachment due to macular hole

期刊

EYE
卷 23, 期 2, 页码 248-254

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/eye.2008.60

关键词

macular hole; retinal detachment; high myopia; triamicinolone acedonide; vitrectomy

资金

  1. national natural science foundation [60671005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To determine the effectiveness of staining an epiretinal membrane (ERM) with triamicinolone acedonide ( TA) during vitrectomy for a retinal detachment (RD) due to a macular hole (MH) in highly myopic eyes. Patients and methods Thirty-four highly myopic eyes (>-6.0 dioptres) of 34 patients with an RD caused by an MH underwent vitrectomy with TA-assisted ERM removal. The excised ERMs from five eyes were examined by transmission electron microscopy (TEM). The main outcome measures were the retinal status and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). The anatomic status of the MH was determined by optic coherence tomography (OCT) in 24 successfully retinal-reattached eyes. The follow-up periods ranged from 5 to 20 months. Results The granules of TA adhered to the ERM and the residual posterior hyaloid, which made them more visible and facilitated their removal. Tissues resembling the internal limiting membrane were not detected in any of the five excised tissues. The retinal reattachment rate was 88% after the first surgery. The mean logMAR BCVA significantly improved from 1.83 +/- 0.50 (mean +/- SD) before surgery to 1.22 +/- 0.35 at the final follow-up (P<0.001, Wilcoxon signed rank test). OCT showed a normal concave appearance in 11 of 24 eyes (46%), but a central neural epithelial defect was present in 13 of 24 eyes (54%). Conclusions TA facilitates the complete removal of both the ERM and residual posterior hyaloid, thus ensuring high anatomical and visual success rates in highly myopic eyes with an RD due to MH.

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