17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      Are you tired of sifting through news that doesn't interest you?
      Personalize your Karger newsletter today and get only the news that matters to you!

      Sign up

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Visual Outcomes of Pars Plana Vitrectomy with Epiretinal Membrane Peeling in Patients with Asteroid Hyalosis: A Matched Cohort Study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: The study aimed to evaluate outcomes of epiretinal membrane (ERM) peeling in patients with asteroid hyalosis (AH) and to compare them with those from controls without AH. Methods: This is a retrospective matched cohort study of 1,104 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for ERM between January 2004 and February 2014. Patients with AH were included in the study group and were matched for preoperative visual acuity, age, gender, date of surgery, and axial length with control patients without AH selected from the same cohort. The best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) on optical coherence tomography were measured at baseline and postoperatively with a minimum follow-up period of 12 months. Results: A total of 44 patients were included in the AH group and 44 in the control group. The mean initial BCVA was 0.53 ± 0.21 LogMAR for the AH group vs. 0.49 ± 0.20 LogMAR for the control group, and the mean initial CMT was 419 ± 74 vs. 423 ± 75 µm, respectively. During the follow-up, no significant difference was found regarding the final BCVA at 6 months (0.23 ± 0.14 vs. 0.24 ± 0.17) LogMAR ( p = 0.87) and 12 months (0.16 ± 0.09 vs. 0.17 ± 0.12) LogMAR ( p = 0.92), despite a tendency toward slower visual recovery for the AH group at 1 month, with a mean BCVA of 0.36 ± 0.12 vs. 0.28 ± 0.18 LogMAR ( p = 0.08). No difference was found regarding the progression of CMT at 1.6 and 12 months with a mean CMT of 396 ± 47 vs. 378 ± 55 µm ( p = 0.39), 356 ± 39 vs. 365 ± 41 µm ( p = 0.48), and 349 ± 68 vs. 352 ± 53 µm ( p = 0.87), respectively. Conclusion: Vitrectomy with ERM peeling in patients with AH was beneficial and showed similar functional and anatomical outcomes in both groups. AH does not seem to affect visual improvement or the complication rate after ERM peeling. Therefore, the indications for vitrectomy in case of ERM should not be prompted by the presence of AH.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          ORE
          Ophthalmic Res
          10.1159/issn.0030-3747
          Ophthalmic Research
          S. Karger AG
          0030-3747
          1423-0259
          2017
          June 2017
          03 May 2017
          : 58
          : 1
          : 35-39
          Affiliations
          Department of Ophthalmology, Nancy University Hospital, Nancy, France
          Author notes
          *Ali Mouna, Department of Ophthalmology, Nancy University Hospital, 5 rue du Morvan, Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, FR-54500 Nancy (France), E-Mail ali.mouna87@gmail.com
          Article
          468990 Ophthalmic Res 2017;58:35-39
          10.1159/000468990
          28463846
          6bd434cc-83b3-4bfd-bcbf-334fb662a653
          © 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel

          Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

          History
          : 08 November 2016
          : 08 March 2017
          Page count
          Figures: 5, Tables: 1, References: 20, Pages: 5
          Categories
          Original Paper

          Vision sciences,Ophthalmology & Optometry,Pathology
          Functional results,Pars plana vitrectomy,Anatomical results,Epiretinal membrane peeling,Asteroid hyalosis

          Comments

          Comment on this article