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
_version_ 1785051398915751936
author Kumar, Aman
Moharana, Bruttendu
Katoch, Deeksha
Singh, Ramandeep
author_facet Kumar, Aman
Moharana, Bruttendu
Katoch, Deeksha
Singh, Ramandeep
author_sort Kumar, Aman
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10229947
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102299472023-06-01 Papillomacular bundle sparing versus conventional internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic macular hole ≤400 µm Kumar, Aman Moharana, Bruttendu Katoch, Deeksha Singh, Ramandeep Indian J Ophthalmol Original Article 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. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2023-03 2023-03-03 /pmc/articles/PMC10229947/ /pubmed/36872711 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_1666_22 Text en Copyright: © 2023 Indian Journal of Ophthalmology https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Kumar, Aman
Moharana, Bruttendu
Katoch, Deeksha
Singh, Ramandeep
Papillomacular bundle sparing versus conventional internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic macular hole ≤400 µm
title Papillomacular bundle sparing versus conventional internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic macular hole ≤400 µm
title_full Papillomacular bundle sparing versus conventional internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic macular hole ≤400 µm
title_fullStr Papillomacular bundle sparing versus conventional internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic macular hole ≤400 µm
title_full_unstemmed Papillomacular bundle sparing versus conventional internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic macular hole ≤400 µm
title_short Papillomacular bundle sparing versus conventional internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic macular hole ≤400 µm
title_sort papillomacular bundle sparing versus conventional internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic macular hole ≤400 µm
topic Original Article
url 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
work_keys_str_mv AT kumaraman papillomacularbundlesparingversusconventionalinternallimitingmembranepeelingforidiopathicmacularhole400μm
AT moharanabruttendu papillomacularbundlesparingversusconventionalinternallimitingmembranepeelingforidiopathicmacularhole400μm
AT katochdeeksha papillomacularbundlesparingversusconventionalinternallimitingmembranepeelingforidiopathicmacularhole400μm
AT singhramandeep papillomacularbundlesparingversusconventionalinternallimitingmembranepeelingforidiopathicmacularhole400μm