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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |