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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mitsui, K, Kogo, J, Takeda, H, Shiono, A, Sasaki, H, Munemasa, Y, Kitaoka, Y, Takagi, H
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