There are several publications documenting that PPV results in decreased macular thickness.
13,21 However, despite publication of many studies on ILM peeling for DME,
14,23,24 the effect of ILM peeling on the macular morphology after PPV remains ill-defined. In the current study, we showed for the first time that shortening of the papillofoveal distance is associated with a decrease in retinal thickness in the temporal subfield. Eyes in which the ILM was peeled had a shorter papillofoveal distance than those in which ILM peeling was not performed, suggesting that the rigid preoperative ILM counteracted unrecognized biomechanical forces, which were seen after ILM removal, and displaced the fovea toward the optic disc.
We considered that shortening of the papillofoveal distance after PPV might depend on either factors such as removal of mechanical forces at baseline or the release of inherent forces in the retina where ILM was peeled. Macular dragging in retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) or familial exudative vitreoretinopathy (FEVR) often show the macular displacement to the temporal side according to the contraction by proliferative tissues and so on. In this study, mechanical forces by ERM or posterior hyaloid membrane modify the baseline macular morphology and the compression caused by unbalanced edema could displace the fovea.
25 The removal of these pathologic forces might facilitate return of the fovea to the correct position. However, preoperative ERM and PVD did not have effects on the shortening of the papillofoveal distance in our study. It supports the inherent forces in the retina, although the random orientation of the tractional forces might hide the statistical significance of the foveal displacement. Compared with these factors, ILM peeling caused significant shortening of the papillofoveal distance, whereas we did not observe the changes in the papillofoveal distance in eyes in which ILM peeling was not performed. The ILM is a rigid basement membrane that contributes to less retinal elasticity.
8 No studies have described the contractile properties of the ILM per se compared with Bruch's membrane with elastic fibers. Therefore, we speculated that the release of unknown forces in the retinal parenchyma might be the major cause of shifting the fovea nasally after ILM peeling.
We demonstrated that the shorter the papillofoveal distance got after surgery, the smaller the retinal thickness in the temporal subfield became. We speculated that foveal displacement toward the optic disc leads to stretching and the thinning of the retinal parenchyma in the temporal subfield. Inversely, the thinning might represent degenerative or atrophic changes,
26 resulting in an imbalance of the biomechanical forces between the nasal and temporal subfields and concomitant foveal migration. We further found that the retina was thinner in eyes treated with ILM peeling compared with those that did not and that a sharp depression of the inner surface in the temporal subfield was seen in 19 eyes (35.2%) in which ILM peeling was performed compared with those in which it was not, which agrees with both possible explanations. Contrary to the temporal subfield, the shortening of the papillofoveal distance was correlated positively with the postoperative retinal thickness in the nasal subfield, but not significantly. However, there were no differences in the retinal thickness change in the nasal subfield between eyes with and without ILM peeling. These data suggested that after ILM peeling foveal displacement might increase the retinal thickness in the nasal subfield, which was counteracted by both the improvement of edematous changes and the degenerative or atrophic changes in the same subfield. However, we did not completely exclude the possibility of surgical artifact by ILM peeling. Further, it remains to be investigated whether such macular deformation occurs in other diseases treated by ILM peeling or after other interventions for macular edema.
The findings after the ILM removal included slight retinal whitening in the acute phase,
27 dissociation of the optic NFL in the subacute phase,
28 and thinning of the temporal retina in the chronic phase.
29 In the current study, we documented for the first time shortening of the papillofoveal distance after ILM peeling for DME. Since the ILM is a basement membrane without contractile properties, we speculated that the dynamic changes in the macular morphology after ILM peeling might depend on retinal components other than the ILM, such as axon contractility in the NFL and asymmetry of the biomechanical forces by cellular components after DME resolution. Nerve fibers are comprised mainly of microtubules and actin filaments,
30 and the contractile properties by an actomyosin interaction might result in the macular migration.
31 Another possibility is the zigzag course of the NFL after ILM peeling. A recent publication using en face OCT images reported concentric dark macular spots in the NFL after ILM peeling,
32 suggesting that the nerve fibers might run a zigzag course and concomitantly produce the contractile forces toward the optic disc. A third possibility is the asymmetry of the biomechanical forces caused by cellular components in the macula. Neuroglial dysfunction in the temporal subfield, which is often vulnerable to ischemic changes in patients with DR,
26 might result in contractile forces in the nasal subfield superior to those in the temporal subfield. We hypothesized that biomechanical asymmetry was counteracted by ILM rigidity, until the PPV combined with ILM peeling resulted in a foveal shift toward the optic disc.
In conclusion, we showed for the first time that the fovea migrates toward the optic disc after ILM peeling for DME, suggesting that the ILM might tether the retinal parenchyma and that the retinal parenchyma per se has contractile properties after ILM peeling.