Register for email alerts and news feeds:
This journal | BMJ Group
rss
British Journal of Ophthalmology 2003;87:737-741; doi:10.1136/bjo.87.6.737
Copyright © 2003 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
British Journal of Ophthalmology 2003;87:737-741
© 2003 BMJ Publishing Group

CLINICAL SCIENCE

Epiretinal membrane removal in diabetic eyes: comparison of viscodissection with conventional methods of membrane peeling

R A Grigorian1, A Castellarin1, R Fegan1, C Seery1, L V Del Priore1, S Von Hagen2 and M A Zarbin1

1 The Institute of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School, NJ, USA
2 Department of Pharmacology and Physiology, UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School, NJ, USA

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Marco A Zarbin, The Institute of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School, NJ, USA;
zarbin{at}umdnj.edu

Aims: To compare conventional methods of epiretinal membrane peeling with viscodissection.

Methods: 154 eyes with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) that underwent pars plana vitrectomy with membrane dissection (89 traditional, 65 viscodissection) were studied retrospectively. Incidence of retinal breaks (RBs), length of time under anaesthesia, postoperative intraocular pressure, retinal reattachment rate, and final visual acuity (VA) were measured.

Results: To compare cases of similar complexity, a "complexity score" was defined. The average complexity score for cases done with and without viscodissection was 4.7 and 3.2, respectively. The mean frequency of RBs in eyes undergoing viscodissection was 0.43 (SD 0.5) v 0.14 (0.35) RBs/eye without viscodissection. In complex cases, the frequency of posterior/peripheral RBs was 0.31 (0.47)/0.13 (0.34) RBs/eye, respectively, with viscodissection v 0.12 (0.33)/0.23 (0.43) RBs/eye without viscodissection. None of these differences were statistically significant. The average preoperative/postoperative VA (logMAR) in the viscodissection cohort was 1.7/1.3 (range 0.3 to >1.9/0.1 to >1.9) v 1.4/1 (range 0.48 to >1.9/0.1 to >1.9) in the non-viscodissection cohort, among eyes with 6 months of follow up. Anaesthesia duration was significantly shorter for cases done without viscodissection (p=0.03), but cases done with viscodissection were significantly more complex than cases done without viscodissection (p<0.0001).

Conclusion: Viscodissection appears to be a safe and effective alternative technique in eyes with PDR. Owing to the retrospective nature of the study, additional studies are warranted.

Keywords: diabetes mellitus; epiretinal membrane; proliferative diabetic retinopathy; viscodissection; vitrectomy


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • McLeod, D (2004). Viscosurgery in diabetic vitrectomy. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 88: 598-599 [Full Text]  
  • McLeod, D, Zarbin, M A, Grigorian, R (2003). Silicone oil in diabetic vitrectomy. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 87: 1303-1306 [Full Text]  

eLetters:

Read all eLetters

Viscosurgery in diabetic vitrectomy
David McLeod
BJO Online, 21 Jul 2003 [Full text]
Epiretinal membrane removal in diabetic eyes: authors' reply.
Marco A Zarbin, et al.
BJO Online, 6 Aug 2003 [Full text]

This Article

Services
Citing Articles
Google Scholar
PubMed
Topic Collections
Bookmark with

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.

Ophthalmology Jobs

Ophthalmology Jobs