June 2013
Volume 54, Issue 15
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2013
Epiretinal Membrane Peeling Following Uncomplicated Primary Retinal Detachment Repair
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Kyle Godfrey
    Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC
  • Tanuj Banker
    Ophthalmology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC
  • Eric Weichel
    Ophthalmology, Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC
    Retina Group of Washington, Washington, DC
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Kyle Godfrey, None; Tanuj Banker, None; Eric Weichel, None
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2013, Vol.54, 5799. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Kyle Godfrey, Tanuj Banker, Eric Weichel, Retina Group of Washington Retinal Detachment Study Group; Epiretinal Membrane Peeling Following Uncomplicated Primary Retinal Detachment Repair. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013;54(15):5799.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Purpose: To evaluate the incidence and outcome of epiretinal membrane (ERM) peeling with pars plana vitrectomy (PPV/MP) following uncomplicated small gauge PPV repair of primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachments (RD).

Methods: A consecutive interventional case series from 2002 to 2012 by one group of retina surgeons performing PPV/MP after uncomplicated primary RD repair using either 23 or 25 gauge PPV instrumentation with or without scleral buckle (SB). Exclusion criteria included preoperative proliferative vitreoretinopathy, pre-existing ERM, pre-existing macular disease, previous PPV or SB, and documented follow-up of less than 3 months. Primary outcome measures included: 1) rate of PPV/MP, and 2) pre/postoperative central macular thickness (CSMT) and central foveal thickness (CPT), as measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT). Secondary outcome measures included: 1) pre/postoperative visual outcomes, 2) rates of cystoid macular edema (CME) confirmed by OCT/fluorescein angiography, and 3) identifying risk factors associated with post-operative CME development.

Results: 204 eyes with post operative ERM and a mean age 60.0 years ± 17.6 years were identified following uncomplicated RD repair. The mean visual acuity was 20/40 (logMAR .32 ± .38). 32 eyes (15.7%) underwent PPV/MP. In this group, the mean preoperative visual acuity was 20/100 (logMAR .86 ± .65) improving to 20/50 (logMAR .43 ± .43) postoperatively (p<0.006). The mean preoperative CSMT was 397.5µ ± 127.3 improving to 282.6µ ± 73.3 postoperatively (p<0.0001). There were 9 (28.1%) cases of chronic postoperative CME. The mean time from RD repair to PPV/MP was 326.1 +/- 299.1 days. There was not a statistically significant difference in PPV/MP or CME rates with regards to lens status.

Conclusions: PPV/MP is common following uncomplicated RD repair. PPV/MP can significantly improve visual acuity and decrease CSMT. Eyes that have undergone PPV/MP require close follow-up to rule out chronic CME.

Keywords: 762 vitreoretinal surgery • 697 retinal detachment • 688 retina  

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.