Comparison of efficacy between internal limiting membrane peeling and internal limiting membrane insertion for idiopathic macular hole

华欣,陈放,胡可可,解正高
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn116022-20210430-00132
2021-01-01
Abstract:Objective:To compare the efficacy between vitrectomy combined with internal limiting membrane peeling and internal limiting membrane insertion for idiopathic macular hole(IMH).Methods:This was a retrospective cohort study. A total of 44 eyes of 43 cases of IMH who underwent pars plana vitrectomy from Aug. 2016 to Aug. 2019 in Northern Jiangsu People’s Hospital Affiliated to Yangzhou University were included. There were 7 eyes of 7 males and 37 eyes of 36 females. The patients were divided into two groups: internal limiting membrane peeling group with 20 eyes and internal limiting membrane insertion group with 24 eyes. The postoperative IMH closure rate, visual acuity and ellipsoid defect diameter were compared between the two groups. The follow-up time was 1-20 months.Results:The IMH closure rate with type Ⅰ were 90.00% (18/20) and 88.89% (16/18) in internal limiting membrane peeling group respectively, and 91.67% (22/24) and 86.36% (19/22) in internal limiting membrane insertion group respectively ( P=1.000, 1.000). Postoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was improved obviously in the two groups compared to preoperative BCVA ( t=5.609, 5.279; P<0.001). The postoperative BCVA of the two groups was similar ( t=-1.415, P=0.164). Postoperative ellipsoid defect diameter was evidently reduced after operation compared with that before operation in internal limiting membrane peeling group ( t=4.027, P=0.001), the difference in internal limiting membrane insertion group was not statistically significant ( t=1.154, P=0.260). There was statistically significant difference in postoperative ellipsoid defect diameter between the two groups ( t=-2.572, P=0.014). Conclusion:Vitrectomy combined with internal limiting membrane peeling and vitrectomy combined with internal limiting membrane insertion are both safe and effective for the treatment of IMH, but the disturbance to the macular microstructure in internal limiting membrane peeling group is slighter.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?