May 2004
Volume 45, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2004
Internal limiting membrane removal for clinically significant macular oedema
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • F. Kuhn
    Director of Research,
    Helen Keller Eye Research Fnd, Birmingham, AL
  • G. Kiss
    Department of Ophthalmology, Pecs, Hungary
  • R. Morris
    Helen Keller Eye Research Fnd, Birmingham, AL
  • V. Mester
    Mafraq Hospital, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
  • Z. Szijarto
    Department of Ophthalmology, Pecs, Hungary
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  F. Kuhn, None; G. Kiss, None; R. Morris, None; V. Mester, None; Z. Szijarto, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  none
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2004, Vol.45, 4139. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      F. Kuhn, G. Kiss, R. Morris, V. Mester, Z. Szijarto; Internal limiting membrane removal for clinically significant macular oedema . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2004;45(13):4139.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: To study the effect of internal limiting membrane (ILM) removal for clinically significant macular edema (CSME). Methods: Retrospective review of 30 consecutive eyes undergoing vitrectomy, ILM peeling, and gas tamponade. Results: The average patient was 52 years old. The edema was caused by diabetes in 87% of the eyes, 42% of which had proliferative disease. The edema was diffuse in 16 eyes (53%) and cystoid (CME) in 14 (47%). In 21% of eyes, spontaneous vitreous detachment was present or the eye had already undergone vitrectomy. All but one eye had at least 6 months of follow–up (average, 12 months). The edema resolved completely in 26 eyes (90%) and partially in 3 (10%). The visual acuity improved at least two Snellen lines in 19 eyes (66%) and one line in four (14%); the average improvement was 4 lines. The acuity was unchanged in three eyes (10%) and worsened in three (10%), all due to cataract. Among the 14 eyes with CME, 11 (79%) became completely dry and the visual acuity improved in 11 eyes (79%). No ILM–related complication was encountered in any eye. Conclusions: Vitrectomy with ILM peeling is a promising approach to eyes with CSME. It appears to offer visual improvement at a much higher rate than laser therapy and with a longer–lasting effect than intravitreal triamcinolones. A larger study is necessary to confirm these preliminary findings.

Keywords: diabetic retinopathy • macula/fovea • vitreoretinal surgery 
×
×

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.

×