Cargando…

A randomised controlled trial evaluating internal limiting membrane peeling forceps in macular hole surgery

PURPOSE: To assess study design and a range of anatomical and functional changes after internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling using forceps developed for atraumatic ILM pick-up compared to standard forceps. METHODS: We conducted a masked proof-of concept randomised controlled trial (RCT) on 65 pat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ferrara, Mariantonia, Rivera-Real, Antonio, Hillier, Roxane J., Habib, Maged, Kadhim, Mustafa R., Sandinha, Maria T., Curran, Katie, Muldrew, Alyson, Steel, David H. W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10198899/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36512088
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00417-022-05932-y
_version_ 1785044824285511680
author Ferrara, Mariantonia
Rivera-Real, Antonio
Hillier, Roxane J.
Habib, Maged
Kadhim, Mustafa R.
Sandinha, Maria T.
Curran, Katie
Muldrew, Alyson
Steel, David H. W.
author_facet Ferrara, Mariantonia
Rivera-Real, Antonio
Hillier, Roxane J.
Habib, Maged
Kadhim, Mustafa R.
Sandinha, Maria T.
Curran, Katie
Muldrew, Alyson
Steel, David H. W.
author_sort Ferrara, Mariantonia
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To assess study design and a range of anatomical and functional changes after internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling using forceps developed for atraumatic ILM pick-up compared to standard forceps. METHODS: We conducted a masked proof-of concept randomised controlled trial (RCT) on 65 patients who underwent ILM peeling for idiopathic full-thickness macular hole (FTMH) using etched-tip forceps (etched-tip group, 33 eyes) compared to standard ILM forceps (smooth-tip group, 32 eyes). Patients were assessed preoperatively, 3 weeks, 3 and 6 months postoperatively. RESULTS: The primary closure rate was 95.4%. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of final visual acuity (66.9 vs 70.9 ETDRS letters, p = 0.13), difference of visual field mean deviation (1.32 vs 1.14 decibels), and number of eyes with pick-up-related retinal haemorrhages (16% vs 16%, p = 0.96), swelling of arcuate nerve fibre layer lesions (63% vs 55%, p = 0.54), number of dissociated optic nerve fibre layer lesions (31.4 vs 41.0, p = 0.16), nor inner retina defects (37% vs 22%, p = 0.17). Similar changes in inner retinal volumes were detected in all 9 sectors of an ETDRS grid except for a trend (p = 0.06) towards a lower reduction in the inferior inner sector in the etched-tip group. CONCLUSIONS: The study was successfully completed with masking maintained and a low risk of bias. Multiple endpoints relating to ILM peeling were assessed, and estimates were provided that can be used for future studies. Although the study was not powered to assess any specific endpoint, the anatomical and functional outcomes assessed did not significantly differ. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00417-022-05932-y.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10198899
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101988992023-05-21 A randomised controlled trial evaluating internal limiting membrane peeling forceps in macular hole surgery Ferrara, Mariantonia Rivera-Real, Antonio Hillier, Roxane J. Habib, Maged Kadhim, Mustafa R. Sandinha, Maria T. Curran, Katie Muldrew, Alyson Steel, David H. W. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Retinal Disorders PURPOSE: To assess study design and a range of anatomical and functional changes after internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling using forceps developed for atraumatic ILM pick-up compared to standard forceps. METHODS: We conducted a masked proof-of concept randomised controlled trial (RCT) on 65 patients who underwent ILM peeling for idiopathic full-thickness macular hole (FTMH) using etched-tip forceps (etched-tip group, 33 eyes) compared to standard ILM forceps (smooth-tip group, 32 eyes). Patients were assessed preoperatively, 3 weeks, 3 and 6 months postoperatively. RESULTS: The primary closure rate was 95.4%. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of final visual acuity (66.9 vs 70.9 ETDRS letters, p = 0.13), difference of visual field mean deviation (1.32 vs 1.14 decibels), and number of eyes with pick-up-related retinal haemorrhages (16% vs 16%, p = 0.96), swelling of arcuate nerve fibre layer lesions (63% vs 55%, p = 0.54), number of dissociated optic nerve fibre layer lesions (31.4 vs 41.0, p = 0.16), nor inner retina defects (37% vs 22%, p = 0.17). Similar changes in inner retinal volumes were detected in all 9 sectors of an ETDRS grid except for a trend (p = 0.06) towards a lower reduction in the inferior inner sector in the etched-tip group. CONCLUSIONS: The study was successfully completed with masking maintained and a low risk of bias. Multiple endpoints relating to ILM peeling were assessed, and estimates were provided that can be used for future studies. Although the study was not powered to assess any specific endpoint, the anatomical and functional outcomes assessed did not significantly differ. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00417-022-05932-y. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-12-13 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10198899/ /pubmed/36512088 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00417-022-05932-y Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Retinal Disorders
Ferrara, Mariantonia
Rivera-Real, Antonio
Hillier, Roxane J.
Habib, Maged
Kadhim, Mustafa R.
Sandinha, Maria T.
Curran, Katie
Muldrew, Alyson
Steel, David H. W.
A randomised controlled trial evaluating internal limiting membrane peeling forceps in macular hole surgery
title A randomised controlled trial evaluating internal limiting membrane peeling forceps in macular hole surgery
title_full A randomised controlled trial evaluating internal limiting membrane peeling forceps in macular hole surgery
title_fullStr A randomised controlled trial evaluating internal limiting membrane peeling forceps in macular hole surgery
title_full_unstemmed A randomised controlled trial evaluating internal limiting membrane peeling forceps in macular hole surgery
title_short A randomised controlled trial evaluating internal limiting membrane peeling forceps in macular hole surgery
title_sort randomised controlled trial evaluating internal limiting membrane peeling forceps in macular hole surgery
topic Retinal Disorders
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10198899/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36512088
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00417-022-05932-y
work_keys_str_mv AT ferraramariantonia arandomisedcontrolledtrialevaluatinginternallimitingmembranepeelingforcepsinmacularholesurgery
AT riverarealantonio arandomisedcontrolledtrialevaluatinginternallimitingmembranepeelingforcepsinmacularholesurgery
AT hillierroxanej arandomisedcontrolledtrialevaluatinginternallimitingmembranepeelingforcepsinmacularholesurgery
AT habibmaged arandomisedcontrolledtrialevaluatinginternallimitingmembranepeelingforcepsinmacularholesurgery
AT kadhimmustafar arandomisedcontrolledtrialevaluatinginternallimitingmembranepeelingforcepsinmacularholesurgery
AT sandinhamariat arandomisedcontrolledtrialevaluatinginternallimitingmembranepeelingforcepsinmacularholesurgery
AT currankatie arandomisedcontrolledtrialevaluatinginternallimitingmembranepeelingforcepsinmacularholesurgery
AT muldrewalyson arandomisedcontrolledtrialevaluatinginternallimitingmembranepeelingforcepsinmacularholesurgery
AT steeldavidhw arandomisedcontrolledtrialevaluatinginternallimitingmembranepeelingforcepsinmacularholesurgery
AT ferraramariantonia randomisedcontrolledtrialevaluatinginternallimitingmembranepeelingforcepsinmacularholesurgery
AT riverarealantonio randomisedcontrolledtrialevaluatinginternallimitingmembranepeelingforcepsinmacularholesurgery
AT hillierroxanej randomisedcontrolledtrialevaluatinginternallimitingmembranepeelingforcepsinmacularholesurgery
AT habibmaged randomisedcontrolledtrialevaluatinginternallimitingmembranepeelingforcepsinmacularholesurgery
AT kadhimmustafar randomisedcontrolledtrialevaluatinginternallimitingmembranepeelingforcepsinmacularholesurgery
AT sandinhamariat randomisedcontrolledtrialevaluatinginternallimitingmembranepeelingforcepsinmacularholesurgery
AT currankatie randomisedcontrolledtrialevaluatinginternallimitingmembranepeelingforcepsinmacularholesurgery
AT muldrewalyson randomisedcontrolledtrialevaluatinginternallimitingmembranepeelingforcepsinmacularholesurgery
AT steeldavidhw randomisedcontrolledtrialevaluatinginternallimitingmembranepeelingforcepsinmacularholesurgery