September 2016
Volume 57, Issue 12
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2016
The Evolution of Pre-Existing Epiretinal Membranes Following Cataract Extraction
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Kevin Wells
    Ophthalmology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, District of Columbia, United States
  • Lucas Lindsell
    Ophthalmology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, District of Columbia, United States
  • Gayatri Reilly
    Ophthalmology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, District of Columbia, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Kevin Wells, None; Lucas Lindsell, None; Gayatri Reilly, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science September 2016, Vol.57, 4082. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Kevin Wells, Lucas Lindsell, Gayatri Reilly; The Evolution of Pre-Existing Epiretinal Membranes Following Cataract Extraction. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2016;57(12):4082.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : There is currently little guidance available regarding management of patients with a cataract and pre-existing epiretinal membrane (ERM). We performed a retrospective chart review examining clinical and optical coherence tomography (OCT) data to assess the evolution of a pre-existing ERM following cataract extraction with intraocular lens (CE/IOL) as well as identify characteristics that may predict the need for a future pars plana vitrectomy and membrane peel (PPV/MP).

Methods : A retrospective chart review was conducted from records at The Retina Group of Washington between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2013. The ICD-9 code (362.56) for ERM was used to identify charts for review. Patients were required to have an ERM prior to CE/IOL and have follow-up of at least 6 months. 4,112 charts were reviewed and 190 eyes met inclusion criteria. Clinical data was collected for all patients and OCT data was collected when available (70 eyes).

Results : PPV/MP was performed on 55 eyes; 19/55 had available OCT data. Of the patients who did not undergo PPV/MP, 51/135 had available OCT data. Mean time from CE/IOL to PPV/MP was 5.6 months. Pre- and post-CE/IOL visual acuity (VA) was found to be worse in patients who underwent PPV/MP compared to those who did not (median pre-CE/IOL VA: PPV/MP=20/50, no PPV/MP=20/30, p=0.015; median post-CE/IOL VA: PPV/MP=20/50, no PPV/MP=20/30, p<0.001). Mean pre-CE/IOL central foveal thickness (CFT) and mean change from pre- to post-CE/IOL were both increased in the group who underwent PPV/MP against the group who did not (pre-CE/IOL CFT: PPV/MP=453um, no PPV/MP=342um, p<0.001; change in CFT: PPV/MP=+40.2um, no PPV/MP=+18.5um, p<0.001). Loss of foveal contour on OCT at the pre-CE/IOL visit demonstrated an increased odds ratio for needing a PPV/MP (OR=7.01, p=0.01). Twenty percent of eyes with OCT data did not have CME pre-CE/IOL but developed CME following CE/IOL; this was found to be a predictor of requiring a PPV/MP (p=0.012). Final VA was similar in both groups (median VA: PPV/MP=20/30, no PPV/MP=20/30, p=0.168).

Conclusions : ERMs are a common finding in patients planning to undergo CE/IOL. Patients with poor VA pre- and post-CE/IOL, increased CFT, loss of foveal contour, or the development of CME post-CE/IOL demonstrated the greatest likelihood of needing a PPV/MP. It is important to counsel patients on the possibility of needing a PPV/MP to achieve their full visual potential.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2016 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Seattle, Wash., May 1-5, 2016.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×