Cargando…

Papillomacular bundle sparing versus conventional internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic macular hole ≤400 µm

PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of papillomacular bundle (PMB) sparing internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling (group LP) and conventional ILM peeling (group CP) for treatment of idiopathic macular hole (MH) of ≤400 μm. METHODS: Fifteen eyes were included in each group. In group CP, conventional 3...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kumar, Aman, Moharana, Bruttendu, Katoch, Deeksha, Singh, Ramandeep
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10229947/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36872711
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_1666_22
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of papillomacular bundle (PMB) sparing internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling (group LP) and conventional ILM peeling (group CP) for treatment of idiopathic macular hole (MH) of ≤400 μm. METHODS: Fifteen eyes were included in each group. In group CP, conventional 360° peeling was done, while in group LP, ILM was spared over PMB. The changes in peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (pRNFL) thickness and ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (GC-IPL) thickness were analyzed at 3 months. RESULTS: MH was closed in all with comparable visual improvement. Postoperatively, retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) was significantly thinner in the temporal quadrant in group CP. GC-IPL was significantly thinner in the temporal quadrants in group LP, whereas it was comparable in group CP. CONCLUSION: PMB sparing ILM peeling is comparable to conventional ILM peeling in terms of closure rate and visual gain, with the advantage of less retinal damage at 3 months.