ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: To compare visual outcomes of vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling and failed SF6 gas tamponade requiring silicone oil (SO) in a second procedure with primary SO tamponade in fovea-involving retinal detachment (FiRD). METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 82 eyes with retinal detachment and mild, but without advanced proliferative retinopathy (PVR ≥C2) requiring vitrectomy for FiRD. Group 1 comprised 23 eyes that underwent SF6 tamponade resulting in re-detachment requiring revision surgery with secondary SO tamponade. Based on the intraoperative findings, group 2 patients had primarily received SO as vitreal tamponade (n=59). Patients receiving a scleral buckle surgery or with advanced PVR as well as patients with underlying vascular diseases and uveitis were excluded. RESULTS: Preoperative visual acuity (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters) was 13.5 ± 19.1 in group 1 and 14.0 ± 18.3 in group 2 (p=0.44). Twelve months after first surgery for FiRD, visual acuity was 49.8 ± 19.8 in group 1 and 51.7 ± 18.7 letters in group 2 (p=0.63). Re-detachment after SO removal requiring revision surgery developed in 17.4 (n=4) and 15.3% (n=9) cases. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that if retinal traction is completely relieved at the end of surgery, vitrectomy with ILM peeling and SF6 may, if successful, improve the functional outcomes in instances with visual potential, ie, a foveal detachment of short duration despite the presence of a mild to moderate PVR, but with the inherent increased risk of re-detachment requiring further intervention and the use of a SO tamponade. Hence, secondary SO installation during re-vitrectomy after failed primary reattachment surgery results in similar functional outcomes as primary oil filling.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To assess the impact of inner limiting membrane peeling during vitrectomy for macula-involving retinal detachment on best-corrected visual acuity (VA). METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 89 eyes with primary macula-involving retinal detachment, which was undergoing vitrectomy, endolaser, retinotomy, endodrainage, and SF6 tamponade. Membrane-blue-assisted membrane peeling had been performed in 61 of the eyes (Group 1) but not in the other 28 (Group 2), which served as controls. RESULTS: Age, lens status, and incidence of proliferative vitreoretinopathy 26.2% versus 39.3%; P = 0.23 in the 2 groups were comparable. The preoperative visual acuity (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters) was 25.7 ± 27.9 in Group 1 and 28.8 ± 29.9 in Group 2 (P = 0.47). After surgery, these rose from 62.3 ± 30.5 (Group 1) and 34.2 ± 35.8 (Group 2) after 1 week (P = 0.090), through 83.1 ± 8.0 and 57.2 ± 32.4 at 1 month (P = 0.0005), to 92.1 ± 4.5 and 74.4 ± 23.1 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters after 6 months (P = 0.0005). More than 6-month incidences of proliferative vitreoretinopathy (13.1% vs. 28.6%; P = 0.13) were similar, whereas the redetachment rate (9.8% vs. 32.1%; P = 0.014), the incidence of secondary epiretinal membranes (1.6% vs. 35.7%; P = 0.0005), and the revitrectomy rate were lower in group 1 (9.8% vs. 53.6%; P = 0.0005). CONCLUSION: Inner limiting membrane peeling during vitrectomy for macula-involving retinal detachment may substantially contribute to the visual recovery, reducing the incidence of secondary epiretinal membrane formation.
