Cargando…
Comparative study of 27-gauge vs 25-gauge vitrectomy for epiretinal membrane
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare 27-gauge (27G) with 25-gauge (25G) microincision vitrectomy in patients with epiretinal membrane (ERM). PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-four eyes of 66 patients undergoing 3-port pars plana vitrectomy using 27G or 25G instrumentation. METHODS: Seventy-four eye...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5108536/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26742862 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/eye.2015.275 |
_version_ | 1782467372960972800 |
---|---|
author | Mitsui, K Kogo, J Takeda, H Shiono, A Sasaki, H Munemasa, Y Kitaoka, Y Takagi, H |
author_facet | Mitsui, K Kogo, J Takeda, H Shiono, A Sasaki, H Munemasa, Y Kitaoka, Y Takagi, H |
author_sort | Mitsui, K |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare 27-gauge (27G) with 25-gauge (25G) microincision vitrectomy in patients with epiretinal membrane (ERM). PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-four eyes of 66 patients undergoing 3-port pars plana vitrectomy using 27G or 25G instrumentation. METHODS: Seventy-four eyes of 66 patients with ERM, who underwent 27G or 25G microincision vitrectomy were prospectively evaluated. RESULTS: The mean operation time for vitrectomy was significantly longer in the 27G group than in the 25G group (9.9±3.5 vs 6.2±2.7 min, respectively, P<0.0001). No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of the mean operation time for ERM–inner limiting membrane peeling (27G vs 25G: 20.2±9.9 vs 16.1±9.3 min, P=0.14), although the time for vitreous cutting was longer in the 27G group (9.9±3.5 vs 6.2±2.7 min, respectively, P<0.0001). The flare value, intraocular pressure (IOP), and rate of hypotony 1 day after surgery did not differ between the 27G and 25G groups (flare value: 18.7 vs 17.2; IOP: 8.8 vs 9.7 mm Hg; rate of hypotony: 30 vs 35%, respectively). There was no significant difference in the surgically induced astigmatism between the two groups in the follow-up period. The mean time required for wound closure did not show a significant difference between the 27G and 25G groups (7.7 vs 8.6 weeks, respectively). CONCLUSION: The 27G system is as safe and useful for ERM vitrectomy as the 25G system. Based on its potential, further improvement of 27G instruments could result in greater efficiency. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5108536 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-51085362016-11-18 Comparative study of 27-gauge vs 25-gauge vitrectomy for epiretinal membrane Mitsui, K Kogo, J Takeda, H Shiono, A Sasaki, H Munemasa, Y Kitaoka, Y Takagi, H Eye (Lond) Clinical Study PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare 27-gauge (27G) with 25-gauge (25G) microincision vitrectomy in patients with epiretinal membrane (ERM). PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-four eyes of 66 patients undergoing 3-port pars plana vitrectomy using 27G or 25G instrumentation. METHODS: Seventy-four eyes of 66 patients with ERM, who underwent 27G or 25G microincision vitrectomy were prospectively evaluated. RESULTS: The mean operation time for vitrectomy was significantly longer in the 27G group than in the 25G group (9.9±3.5 vs 6.2±2.7 min, respectively, P<0.0001). No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of the mean operation time for ERM–inner limiting membrane peeling (27G vs 25G: 20.2±9.9 vs 16.1±9.3 min, P=0.14), although the time for vitreous cutting was longer in the 27G group (9.9±3.5 vs 6.2±2.7 min, respectively, P<0.0001). The flare value, intraocular pressure (IOP), and rate of hypotony 1 day after surgery did not differ between the 27G and 25G groups (flare value: 18.7 vs 17.2; IOP: 8.8 vs 9.7 mm Hg; rate of hypotony: 30 vs 35%, respectively). There was no significant difference in the surgically induced astigmatism between the two groups in the follow-up period. The mean time required for wound closure did not show a significant difference between the 27G and 25G groups (7.7 vs 8.6 weeks, respectively). CONCLUSION: The 27G system is as safe and useful for ERM vitrectomy as the 25G system. Based on its potential, further improvement of 27G instruments could result in greater efficiency. Nature Publishing Group 2016-04 2016-01-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5108536/ /pubmed/26742862 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/eye.2015.275 Text en Copyright © 2016 Royal College of Ophthalmologists http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Clinical Study Mitsui, K Kogo, J Takeda, H Shiono, A Sasaki, H Munemasa, Y Kitaoka, Y Takagi, H Comparative study of 27-gauge vs 25-gauge vitrectomy for epiretinal membrane |
title | Comparative study of 27-gauge vs 25-gauge vitrectomy for epiretinal membrane |
title_full | Comparative study of 27-gauge vs 25-gauge vitrectomy for epiretinal membrane |
title_fullStr | Comparative study of 27-gauge vs 25-gauge vitrectomy for epiretinal membrane |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparative study of 27-gauge vs 25-gauge vitrectomy for epiretinal membrane |
title_short | Comparative study of 27-gauge vs 25-gauge vitrectomy for epiretinal membrane |
title_sort | comparative study of 27-gauge vs 25-gauge vitrectomy for epiretinal membrane |
topic | Clinical Study |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5108536/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26742862 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/eye.2015.275 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mitsuik comparativestudyof27gaugevs25gaugevitrectomyforepiretinalmembrane AT kogoj comparativestudyof27gaugevs25gaugevitrectomyforepiretinalmembrane AT takedah comparativestudyof27gaugevs25gaugevitrectomyforepiretinalmembrane AT shionoa comparativestudyof27gaugevs25gaugevitrectomyforepiretinalmembrane AT sasakih comparativestudyof27gaugevs25gaugevitrectomyforepiretinalmembrane AT munemasay comparativestudyof27gaugevs25gaugevitrectomyforepiretinalmembrane AT kitaokay comparativestudyof27gaugevs25gaugevitrectomyforepiretinalmembrane AT takagih comparativestudyof27gaugevs25gaugevitrectomyforepiretinalmembrane |