June 2017
Volume 58, Issue 8
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2017
Combined Pars Plana Vitrectomy (PPV) and Phacoemulsification (Phaco) versus PPV and Deferred Phaco for Patients with Macular Hole (MH) or Epiretinal Membrane (ERM)
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Rodrigo Jorge
    Ophthalmology, Ribeirao Preto Med School, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil
  • Karlos Italo Viana
    Ophthalmology, Ribeirao Preto Med School, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil
  • David Lucena
    Ophthalmology, Ribeirao Preto Med School, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil
  • Marcelo Menegatti Esperandio
    Ophthalmology, Ribeirao Preto Med School, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil
  • Denny Marcos Garcia
    Ophthalmology, Ribeirao Preto Med School, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil
  • Felipe Piacentini Almeida
    Ophthalmology, Ribeirao Preto Med School, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil
  • Andre Messias
    Ophthalmology, Ribeirao Preto Med School, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil
  • Ingrid U Scott
    Departments of Ophthalmology and Public Health Sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Rodrigo Jorge, None; Karlos Viana, None; David Lucena, None; Marcelo Esperandio, None; Denny Garcia, None; Felipe Almeida, None; Andre Messias, None; Ingrid Scott, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  CNPq Grant 305299/2015-8
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2017, Vol.58, 2805. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Rodrigo Jorge, Karlos Italo Viana, David Lucena, Marcelo Menegatti Esperandio, Denny Marcos Garcia, Felipe Piacentini Almeida, Andre Messias, Ingrid U Scott; Combined Pars Plana Vitrectomy (PPV) and Phacoemulsification (Phaco) versus PPV and Deferred Phaco for Patients with Macular Hole (MH) or Epiretinal Membrane (ERM). Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2017;58(8):2805.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : To compare 48-week functional and anatomical outcomes associated with combined PPV and phaco versus PPV and deferred phaco in patients with MH or ERM

Methods : Prospective study including 84 patients with MH or ERM with no cataract or with lens opacity lower than grade II cortical/nuclear according to the Lens Opacity Classification System(LOCS) III. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups. Group I:combined PPV and phaco; Group II:PPV and deferred phaco. Ophthalmologic evaluation (baseline, 4, 12, 24, 36 and 48 weeks) included ETDRS BCVA, LOCS III lens opacity classification, specular microscopy(Konan Medical Inc., California, USA), SD-OCT(Heidelberg, Germany) and microperimetry (MAIA, Italy). In group II, phaco could be performed at any time after PPV if the cataract severity was LOCS subcapsular≥1 or nuclear ≥3 or cortical ≥3, or if the patient had, in the opinion of the investigator, (1)any cataract that would prevent valid microperimetry or OCT evaluation or (2)any decrease in BCVA attributable to cataract

Results : To date, 49 patients (49 eyes;4 ERM/group) completed the 48-week visit. MH stages 3 and 4 represented 60% of cases in both groups. All group II patients(n=24) who completed the 48-week study period underwent phaco. Mean(± SD) age was 68.3±6.5 and 66.9±5.2 years in groups I and II, respectively(p=0.94). Mean BCVA(logMAR) was 0.93±0.05 and 0.91±0.06 at baseline and improved significantly to 0.59±0.06 and 0.57±0.09 at week 48(p<0.0001) in groups I and II, respectively, with no significant difference between groups (p=0.47). Mean MH size(μm) was 470.20±214.48 and 431.57±146.55 at baseline(p=0.51) and MH closure rate was 72% and 78% (p=0.35) in groups I and II, respectively. Mean macular sensitivity threshold(dB) was 18.52±1.04 and 17.68±1.31 at baseline and improved significantly to 21.42±0.89 and 21.20±1.37 at week 48(p<0.05) in groups I and II, respectively, with no difference between groups(p=0.70). Mean endothelial cell density(cells/mm2) was 2423.31±75.30 and 2537.00±70.35 at baseline and decreased significantly to 2130.41±92.61 and 2034.35±119.53 at week 48(p<0.05) in groups I and II, respectively, with no difference between groups(p=0.16)

Conclusions : Combined PPV and phaco was associated with similar anatomical and functional results when compared to PPV and deferred phaco in patients with MH or ERM

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2017 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Baltimore, MD, May 7-11, 2017.

×
×

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.

×