Inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique as a useful procedure for macular hole-associated retinal detachment in highly myopic eyes.

PurposeTo determine whether the inverted internal limiting membrane (ILM) flap technique contributes to high reattachment and closure rates in patients with macular hole-associated retinal detachment (MHRD).Patients and methodsIn all, 15 eyes of 15 patients with MHRD undergoing 25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy with the inverted ILM flap technique or ILM peeling. The patients were divided into the inverted ILM flap technique group (6 eyes) and ILM peeling group (9 eyes). The logarithm of minimal angle of resolution best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and retinal attachment and macular hole closure rates were compared between the two groups before and after surgery.ResultsNo significant differences were found in the pre- and postoperative BCVA at 1 and 3 months after surgery in either group (inverted ILM flap technique group, preoperatively 1.04±0.55, 1 month 0.95±0.30, 3 months 0.83±0.22; ILM peeling group, preoperatively 1.00±0.44, 1 month 1.05±0.38, 3 months 1.06±0.49; P>0.05, respectively). The postoperative BCVA at 6 months after surgery was significantly better in the inverted ILM flap technique group than in the ILM peeling group (inverted ILM flap technique group, 0.62±0.35; ILM peeling group, 1.02±0.41, P=0.045). The improvement in BCVA was significantly better in the inverted ILM flap technique group than in the ILM peeling group (inverted ILM flap technique group, -0.41±0.29; ILM peeling group, 0.02±0.36; P=0.021). The primary macular hole closure rates were 100% in the inverted ILM flap technique group and 55.5% in the ILM peeling group. The primary reattachment rates were 100% in the inverted ILM flap technique group and 55.5% in the ILM peeling group. The primary macular hole closure and reattachment rates were not significantly different in both groups (P=0.056, respectively).ConclusionThe inverted ILM flap technique is a useful procedure for MHRD in highly myopic eyes.

Comparative study of 27-gauge vs 25-gauge vitrectomy for epiretinal membrane.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare 27-gauge (27G) with 25-gauge (25G) microincision vitrectomy in patients with epiretinal membrane (ERM).ParticipantsSeventy-four eyes of 66 patients undergoing 3-port pars plana vitrectomy using 27G or 25G instrumentation. METHODS: Seventy-four eyes of 66 patients with ERM, who underwent 27G or 25G microincision vitrectomy were prospectively evaluated. RESULTS: The mean operation time for vitrectomy was significantly longer in the 27G group than in the 25G group (9.9±3.5 vs 6.2±2.7 min, respectively, P<0.0001). No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of the mean operation time for ERM-inner limiting membrane peeling (27G vs 25G: 20.2±9.9 vs 16.1±9.3 min, P=0.14), although the time for vitreous cutting was longer in the 27G group (9.9±3.5 vs 6.2±2.7 min, respectively, P<0.0001). The flare value, intraocular pressure (IOP), and rate of hypotony 1 day after surgery did not differ between the 27G and 25G groups (flare value: 18.7 vs 17.2; IOP: 8.8 vs 9.7 mm Hg; rate of hypotony: 30 vs 35%, respectively). There was no significant difference in the surgically induced astigmatism between the two groups in the follow-up period. The mean time required for wound closure did not show a significant difference between the 27G and 25G groups (7.7 vs 8.6 weeks, respectively). CONCLUSION: The 27G system is as safe and useful for ERM vitrectomy as the 25G system. Based on its potential, further improvement of 27G instruments could result in greater efficiency.