Top

BMC Ophthalmology

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Comparative study of inverted internal limiting membrane (ILM) flap and ILM peeling technique in large macular holes: a randomized-control trial

Authors: Naresh Babu Kannan, Piyush Kohli, Haemoglobin Parida, O. O. Adenuga, Kim Ramasamy

Published in: BMC Ophthalmology | Issue 1/2018

Abstract

Background

The anatomical success rate of macular hole surgery ranges around 93–98%. However, the prognosis of large macular holes is generally poor. The study was conducted to compare the anatomical and visual outcomes of Internal Limiting Membrane (ILM) peeling vis-a-vis inverted ILM flap for the treatment of idiopathic large Full-Thickness Macular Holes (FTMH).

Methods

This was a prospective randomized control trial. The study included patients with idiopathic FTMH, with a minimum diameter ranging from 600 to 1500 μm. The patients were randomized into Group A (ILM peeling) and Group B (inverted ILM flap). The main outcome measures were anatomical and visual outcome at the end of 6 months. Anatomical success was defined as flattening of macular hole with resolution of the subretinal cuff of fluid and neurosensory retina completely covering the fovea.

Results

There were 30 patients in each group. The mean minimum diameters in Group A and B were 759.97 ± 85.01 μm and 803.33 ± 120.65 μm respectively (p = 0.113). The mean base diameter in group A and B was 1304.50 ± 191.59 μm and 1395.17 ± 240.56 μm respectively (p = 0.112). The anatomical success rates achieved in Group A and B were 70.0 and 90.0% respectively (p = 0.125). The mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) after 6 months was logMAR 0.65 ± 0.25 (Snellen equivalent, 20/89) in Group A and logMAR 0.53 ± 0.20 (Snellen equivalent, 20/68) in Group B (p = 0.060). The mean improvement in BCVA was 1.4 lines and 2.1 lines in groups A and B respectively (p = 0.353). BCVA≥20/60 was achieved by 13.3 and 20.0% in group A and B respectively (p = 0.766).

Conclusion

The anatomical and functional outcome of Inverted ILM flap technique in large FTMH is statistically similar to that seen in conventional ILM peeling.

Trial registration

Clinical Trials Registry – India (Indian Medical Research) CTRI/2017/11/010474.

Available only for authorised users

Rahimy E, MCCannel CA. Impact of internal limiting membrane peeling on macular hole reopening. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Retina. 2016;36:679–87. https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000000782.CrossRefPubMed

Lai MM, Williams GA. Anatomical and visual outcomes of idiopathic macular hole surgery with internal limiting membrane removal using low-concentration indocyanine green. Retina. 2007;27:477–82. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.iae.0000247166.11120.21.CrossRefPubMed

Park DW, Sipperley JO, Sneed SR, Dugel PU, Jacobsen J. Macular hole surgery with internal-limiting membrane peeling and intravitreous air. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:1392–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(99)00730-7.CrossRefPubMed

Wolf S, Reichel MB, Wiedemann P, Schnurrbusch UE. Clinical findings in macular hole surgery with indocyanine greenassisted peeling of the internal limiting membrane. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2003;241:589–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-003-0673-1.CrossRefPubMed

Ip MS, Baker BJ, Duker JS, Reichel E, Baumal CR, Gangnon R, et al. Anatomical outcomes of surgery for idiopathic macular hole as determined by optical coherence tomography. Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:29–35.CrossRefPubMed

Ullrich S, Haritoglou C, Gass C, Schaumberger M, Ulbig MW, Kampik A. Macular hole size as a prognostic factor in macular hole surgery. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86:390–3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kusuhara S, Teraoka MF, Fujii S, Nakanishi Y, Tamura Y, Nagai A, et al. Prediction of postoperative visual outcome based on hole configuration by optical coherence tomography in eyes with idiopathic macular holes. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;138:709–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2004.04.063.CrossRefPubMed

Haritoglou C, Neubauer AS, Reiniger IW, Priglinger SG, Gass CA, Kampik A. Long-term functional outcome of macular hole surgery correlated to optical coherence tomography measurements. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2007;35:208–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9071.2006.01445.x.CrossRefPubMed

Ruiz-Moreno JM, Staicu C, Piñero DP, Montero J, Lugo F, Amat P. Optical coherence tomography predictive factors for macular hole surgery outcome. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008;92:640–4. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2007.136176.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Chhablani J, Khodani M, Hussein A, Bondalapati S, Rao HB, Narayanan R. Role of macular hole angle in macular hole closure. Br J Ophthalmol. 2015;99:1634–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2015-307014.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Scott RA, Ezra E, West JF, Gregor ZJ. Visual and anatomical results of surgery for long standing macular holes. Br J Ophthalmol. 2000;84:150–3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Stec LA, Ross RD, Williams GA, Gregor ZJ. Vitrectomy for chronic macular holes. Retina. 2004;24:341–7.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Shukla SY, Afshar AR, Kiernan DF, Hariprasad SM. Outcomes of chronic macular hole surgical repair. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2014;62:795–8. https://doi.org/10.4103/0301-4738.138302.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Michalewska Z, Michalewski J, Adelman RA, Nawrocki J. Inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique for large macular holes. Ophthalmology. 2010;117:2018–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.02.011.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Mahalingam P, Sambhav K. Surgical outcomes of inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique for large macular hole. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2013;61:601–3. https://doi.org/10.4103/0301-4738.121090.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Shanmugam MP, Ramanjulu R, Kumar M, Rodrigues G, Reddy S, Mishra D. Inverted ILM peeling for idiopathic and other etiology macular holes. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2014;62:898–9. https://doi.org/10.4103/0301-4738.141077.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Khodani M, Bansal P, Narayanan R, Chhablani J. Inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique for very large macular hole. Int J Ophthalmol. 2016;9:1230–2. https://doi.org/10.18240/ijo.2016.08.22.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

18.

Chen Z, Zhao C, Ye JJ, Sui RF. Inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique for repair of large macular holes: a short-term follow-up of anatomical and functional outcomes. Chin Med J. 2016;129:511–7. https://doi.org/10.4103/0366-6999.176988.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Gu C, Qiu Q. Inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique for large macular holes: a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2018 [Ahead of print]. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-018-3956-2.

20.

Manasa S, Kakkar P, Kumar A, Chandra P, Kumar V, Ravani R. Comparative evaluation of standard ILM peel with inverted ILM flap technique in large macular holes: a prospective, randomized study. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2018;49:236–40. https://doi.org/10.3928/23258160-20180329-04.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Rizzo S, Tartaro R, Barca F, Caporossi T, Bacherini D, Giansanti F. Internal limiting membrane peeling versus inverted flap technique for treatment of full-thickness macular holes: a comparative study in a large series of patients. Retina 2017 Dec 8 [Ahead of print]. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000001985.

22.

Yamashita T, Sakamoto T, Terasaki H, Iwasaki M, Ogushi Y, Okamoto F, et al. Best surgical technique and outcomes for large macular holes: retrospective multicentre study in Japan. Acta Ophthalmol 2018 Apr 19 [Ahead of print]. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.13795.

23.

Narayanan R, Singh SR, Taylor S, Berrocal MH, Chhablani J, Tyagi M, et al. Surgical outcomes after inverted internal limiting membrane flap versus conventional peeling for very large macular holes. Retina 2018 Apr 23 [Ahead of print]. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000002186.

24.

Velez-Montoya R, Ramirez-Estudillo JA, Sjoholm-Gomez de Liano C, Bejar-Cornejo F, Sanchez-Ramos J, Guerrero-Naranjo JL, et al. Inverted ILM flap, free ILM flap and conventional ILM peeling for large macular holes. Int J Retina Vitreous. 2018;4:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40942-018-0111-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Shukla D, Kalliath J, Patwardhan A, Kannan NB, Thayyil SB. A preliminary study of heavy brilliant blue G for internal limiting membrane staining in macular hole surgery. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2012;60:531–4. https://doi.org/10.4103/0301-4738.103786.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Kannan NB, Adenuga OO, Kumar K, Ramasamy K. Outcome of 2 cc pure sulfur hexafluoride gas tamponade for macular hole surgery. BMC Ophthalmol. 2016;16:73. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-016-0254-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Landolfi M, Zarbin MA, Bhagat N. Macular holes. Ophthalmol Clin N Am. 2002;15:565–72.CrossRef

28.

Smiddy WE, Feuer W, Cordahi G. Internal limiting membrane peeling in macular hole surgery. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:1471–6.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Gupta D. Face-down posturing after macular hole surgery. A Review. Retina. 2009;29:430–43. https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0b013e3181a0bd01.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Funata M, Wendel RT, de la Cruz Z, Green WR. Clinicopathologic study of bilateral macular holes treated with pars plana vitrectomy and gas tamponade. Retina. 1992;12:289–98.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Madreperla SA, Geiger GL, Funata M, de la Cruz Z, Green WR. Clinicopathologic correlation of a macular hole treated by cortical vitreous peeling and gas tamponade. Ophthalmology. 1994;101:682–6.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Rosa RH Jr, Glaser BM, de la Cruz Z, Green WR. Clinicopathologic correlation of an untreated macular hole and a macular hole treated by vitrectomy, transforming growth factor-b2, and gas tamponade. Am J Ophthalmol. 1996;122:853–63.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Kang SW, Ahn K, Ham DI. Types of macular hole closure and their clinical implications. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87:1015–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Michalewska Z, Michalewski J, Dulczewska-Cichecka K, Adelman RA, Nawrocki J. Temporal inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique versus classic inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique: a comparative study. Retina. 2015;35:1844–50. https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000000555.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Shiode Y, Morizane Y, Matoba R, Hirano M, Doi S, Toshima S, et al. The role of inverted internal limiting membrane flap in macular hole closure. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2017;58:4847–55. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.17-21756. CrossRefPubMed

36.

Yuan J, Zhang LL, Lu YJ, Han MY, Yu AH, Cai XJ. Vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling versus inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique for macular hole-induced retinal detachment: a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis. BMC Ophthalmol. 2017;17:219. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-017-0619-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Comparative study of inverted internal limiting membrane (ILM) flap and ILM peeling technique in large macular holes: a randomized-control trial
Authors: Naresh Babu Kannan
Piyush Kohli
Haemoglobin Parida
O. O. Adenuga
Kim Ramasamy
Publication date: 01-12-2018
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Ophthalmology / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2415
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-018-0826-y

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Comparative study of inverted internal limiting membrane (ILM) flap and ILM peeling technique in large macular holes: a randomized-control trial

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Effect of dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex®) on corneal endothelium in retinal vein occlusion patients

Complete regression of branching vascular network in polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy by ranibizumab and photodynamic therapy, two case reports

The increasing prevalence of myopia and high myopia among high school students in Fenghua city, eastern China: a 15-year population-based survey

Cap-preserving SMILE Enhancement Surgery

Predictive multi-imaging biomarkers relevant for visual acuity in idiopathic macular telangiectasis type 1

Goldenhar syndrome with blepharophimosis and limb deformities: a case report