Cargando…
Surgical classification for large macular hole: based on different surgical techniques results: the CLOSE study group
BACKGROUND: The CLOSE study group proposes an updated surgical classification for large macular holes based on a systematic review of new treatments. Recently, many new techniques have been introduced to treat large full-thickness macular holes (FTMH); although the indications are not clear. An upda...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9885593/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36717928 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40942-022-00439-4 |
_version_ | 1784879961051496448 |
---|---|
author | Rezende, Flavio A. Ferreira, Bruna G. Rampakakis, Emmanouil Steel, David H. Koss, Michael J. Nawrocka, Zofia A. Bacherini, Daniela Rodrigues, Eduardo B. Meyer, Carsten H. Caporossi, Tomaso Mahmoud, Tamer H. Rizzo, Stanislao Johnson, Mark W. Duker, Jay S. |
author_facet | Rezende, Flavio A. Ferreira, Bruna G. Rampakakis, Emmanouil Steel, David H. Koss, Michael J. Nawrocka, Zofia A. Bacherini, Daniela Rodrigues, Eduardo B. Meyer, Carsten H. Caporossi, Tomaso Mahmoud, Tamer H. Rizzo, Stanislao Johnson, Mark W. Duker, Jay S. |
author_sort | Rezende, Flavio A. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The CLOSE study group proposes an updated surgical classification for large macular holes based on a systematic review of new treatments. Recently, many new techniques have been introduced to treat large full-thickness macular holes (FTMH); although the indications are not clear. An updated surgical classification is needed to help surgical decision-making. METHODS: We gathered published series by the CLOSE Study Group members and from literature search until June 2021. Techniques included: internal limiting membrane peeling (ILM peeling), ILM flaps, macular hydrodissection (macular hydro), human amniotic membrane graft (hAM), and autologous retinal transplantation (ART). Within each technique, chi-square test assessed association between the minimal linear diameter (MLD) (in µm) and closure rate; the postoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) gains were compared among groups. RESULTS: Data extraction included 31 published articles: total of 1135 eyes. Eyes were divided into the following groups: ILM peel (n: 683), ILM Flap (n: 233), macular hydrodissection (n: 64), hAM (n: 59), and ART (n: 96). The initial BCVA and size were heterogenous between the groups. ILM peel showed the best results in large FTMH ≤ 535 µm (closure rate 96.8%); adjusted mean BCVA: 0.49 (LogMAR) with a statistical difference among groups. Large FTMH between 535 and 799 µm: ILM flap technique showed better results (closure rate 99.0%); adjusted mean BCVA: 0.67(LogMAR); also with a statistical difference. For large FTMH ≥ 800 µm more invasive techniques are required. Use of hAM, macular hydrodissection and ART showed higher closure rates for this category (100%, 83.3% and 90.5% respectively), and adjusted mean BCVA varied from 0.76 to 0.89. Although there was no statistical difference between those techniques for this group due to the smaller number of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The CLOSE study group demonstrated the potential usefulness of a new surgical classification for large FTMHs and propose OCT biomarkers for use in clinical practice and future research. This new classification demonstrated that Large (400–550 µm) and X-Large (550–800 µm) holes can be treated highly successfully with ILM peel and ILM flap techniques, respectively. Further studies are necessary for the larger FTMHs (XX-Large and Giant), using the CLOSE classification, in order to determine which technique is better suited for each hole size and characteristics. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9885593 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-98855932023-01-31 Surgical classification for large macular hole: based on different surgical techniques results: the CLOSE study group Rezende, Flavio A. Ferreira, Bruna G. Rampakakis, Emmanouil Steel, David H. Koss, Michael J. Nawrocka, Zofia A. Bacherini, Daniela Rodrigues, Eduardo B. Meyer, Carsten H. Caporossi, Tomaso Mahmoud, Tamer H. Rizzo, Stanislao Johnson, Mark W. Duker, Jay S. Int J Retina Vitreous Original Article BACKGROUND: The CLOSE study group proposes an updated surgical classification for large macular holes based on a systematic review of new treatments. Recently, many new techniques have been introduced to treat large full-thickness macular holes (FTMH); although the indications are not clear. An updated surgical classification is needed to help surgical decision-making. METHODS: We gathered published series by the CLOSE Study Group members and from literature search until June 2021. Techniques included: internal limiting membrane peeling (ILM peeling), ILM flaps, macular hydrodissection (macular hydro), human amniotic membrane graft (hAM), and autologous retinal transplantation (ART). Within each technique, chi-square test assessed association between the minimal linear diameter (MLD) (in µm) and closure rate; the postoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) gains were compared among groups. RESULTS: Data extraction included 31 published articles: total of 1135 eyes. Eyes were divided into the following groups: ILM peel (n: 683), ILM Flap (n: 233), macular hydrodissection (n: 64), hAM (n: 59), and ART (n: 96). The initial BCVA and size were heterogenous between the groups. ILM peel showed the best results in large FTMH ≤ 535 µm (closure rate 96.8%); adjusted mean BCVA: 0.49 (LogMAR) with a statistical difference among groups. Large FTMH between 535 and 799 µm: ILM flap technique showed better results (closure rate 99.0%); adjusted mean BCVA: 0.67(LogMAR); also with a statistical difference. For large FTMH ≥ 800 µm more invasive techniques are required. Use of hAM, macular hydrodissection and ART showed higher closure rates for this category (100%, 83.3% and 90.5% respectively), and adjusted mean BCVA varied from 0.76 to 0.89. Although there was no statistical difference between those techniques for this group due to the smaller number of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The CLOSE study group demonstrated the potential usefulness of a new surgical classification for large FTMHs and propose OCT biomarkers for use in clinical practice and future research. This new classification demonstrated that Large (400–550 µm) and X-Large (550–800 µm) holes can be treated highly successfully with ILM peel and ILM flap techniques, respectively. Further studies are necessary for the larger FTMHs (XX-Large and Giant), using the CLOSE classification, in order to determine which technique is better suited for each hole size and characteristics. BioMed Central 2023-01-30 /pmc/articles/PMC9885593/ /pubmed/36717928 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40942-022-00439-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Rezende, Flavio A. Ferreira, Bruna G. Rampakakis, Emmanouil Steel, David H. Koss, Michael J. Nawrocka, Zofia A. Bacherini, Daniela Rodrigues, Eduardo B. Meyer, Carsten H. Caporossi, Tomaso Mahmoud, Tamer H. Rizzo, Stanislao Johnson, Mark W. Duker, Jay S. Surgical classification for large macular hole: based on different surgical techniques results: the CLOSE study group |
title | Surgical classification for large macular hole: based on different surgical techniques results: the CLOSE study group |
title_full | Surgical classification for large macular hole: based on different surgical techniques results: the CLOSE study group |
title_fullStr | Surgical classification for large macular hole: based on different surgical techniques results: the CLOSE study group |
title_full_unstemmed | Surgical classification for large macular hole: based on different surgical techniques results: the CLOSE study group |
title_short | Surgical classification for large macular hole: based on different surgical techniques results: the CLOSE study group |
title_sort | surgical classification for large macular hole: based on different surgical techniques results: the close study group |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9885593/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36717928 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40942-022-00439-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT rezendeflavioa surgicalclassificationforlargemacularholebasedondifferentsurgicaltechniquesresultstheclosestudygroup AT ferreirabrunag surgicalclassificationforlargemacularholebasedondifferentsurgicaltechniquesresultstheclosestudygroup AT rampakakisemmanouil surgicalclassificationforlargemacularholebasedondifferentsurgicaltechniquesresultstheclosestudygroup AT steeldavidh surgicalclassificationforlargemacularholebasedondifferentsurgicaltechniquesresultstheclosestudygroup AT kossmichaelj surgicalclassificationforlargemacularholebasedondifferentsurgicaltechniquesresultstheclosestudygroup AT nawrockazofiaa surgicalclassificationforlargemacularholebasedondifferentsurgicaltechniquesresultstheclosestudygroup AT bacherinidaniela surgicalclassificationforlargemacularholebasedondifferentsurgicaltechniquesresultstheclosestudygroup AT rodrigueseduardob surgicalclassificationforlargemacularholebasedondifferentsurgicaltechniquesresultstheclosestudygroup AT meyercarstenh surgicalclassificationforlargemacularholebasedondifferentsurgicaltechniquesresultstheclosestudygroup AT caporossitomaso surgicalclassificationforlargemacularholebasedondifferentsurgicaltechniquesresultstheclosestudygroup AT mahmoudtamerh surgicalclassificationforlargemacularholebasedondifferentsurgicaltechniquesresultstheclosestudygroup AT rizzostanislao surgicalclassificationforlargemacularholebasedondifferentsurgicaltechniquesresultstheclosestudygroup AT johnsonmarkw surgicalclassificationforlargemacularholebasedondifferentsurgicaltechniquesresultstheclosestudygroup AT dukerjays surgicalclassificationforlargemacularholebasedondifferentsurgicaltechniquesresultstheclosestudygroup |