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