rss
Br J Ophthalmol 2003;87:737-741 doi:10.1136/bjo.87.6.737
  • Original Article
    • Clinical science

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

  1. R A Grigorian1,
  2. A Castellarin1,
  3. R Fegan1,
  4. C Seery1,
  5. L V Del Priore1,
  6. S Von Hagen2,
  7. M A Zarbin1
  1. 1The Institute of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School, NJ, USA
  2. 2Department of Pharmacology and Physiology, UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School, NJ, USA
  1. Correspondence to: Marco A Zarbin, The Institute of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School, NJ, USA; zarbin{at}umdnj.edu
  • Accepted 31 October 2002

Abstract

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.

Footnotes

    Responses to this article

    • Epiretinal membrane removal in diabetic eyes: authors' reply.
      • Marco A Zarbin,
      • Ruben Grigorian
      Br J Ophthalmol published online September 14, 2009
    • Viscosurgery in diabetic vitrectomy
      • David McLeod
      Br J Ophthalmol published online September 14, 2009

    This Article

    1. Abstract
    2. Full text
    3. PDF

    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.