Article Text

PDF
Clinical science
Value of internal limiting membrane peeling in surgery for idiopathic macular hole stage 2 and 3: a randomised clinical trial
  1. U C Christensen,
  2. K Krøyer,
  3. B Sander,
  4. M Larsen,
  5. V Henning,
  6. J Villumsen,
  7. M la Cour
  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Glostrup Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
  1. Correspondence to Dr U C Christensen, Department of Ophthalmology, Glostrup Hospital, Nordre Ringvej 57, DK-2600 Glostrup, Denmark; ulrikchristensen{at}dadlnet.dk

Abstract

Aim: To determine the effect of internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling on anatomical and functional success rates in stage 2 and 3 idiopathic macular hole surgery (MHS).

Methods: Randomised clinical trial of stage 2 and 3 idiopathic macular hole without visible epiretinal fibrosis and with less than 1 year’s duration of symptoms. Eyes were randomised to (1) vitrectomy alone without retinal surface manipulation, (2) vitrectomy plus 0.05% isotonic Indocyanine Green (ICG)-assisted ILM peeling or (3) vitrectomy plus 0.15% Trypan Blue (TB)-assisted ILM peeling. Main outcomes were hole closure after 3 and 12 months and best-corrected visual acuity after 12 months.

Results: 78 eyes were enrolled. Primary closure rates were significantly higher with ILM peeling than without peeling for both stage 2 holes (ICG peeling 100%, non-peeling 55%, p = 0.014) and for stage 3 holes (ICG peeling 91%, TB peeling 89%, non-peeling 36%, p<0.001). Visual outcomes in eyes with primary hole closure were not significantly different between the groups.

Conclusions: Dye-assisted ILM peeling was associated with significantly higher closure rates than non-peeling in both stage 2 and 3 MHS. Intraoperative ILM staining with 0.05% isotonic ICG was not associated with a significantly different visual outcome than non-peeling or TB peeling in eyes with primary hole closure.

Trial registration number: NCT00302328.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Funding The Danish Eye Health Society, The Danish Medical Research Council, The John and Birthe Meyer Foundation and The Velux Foundation.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Ethics approval Ethics approval was provided by the Danish Committee for Biomedical Research Ethics.

  • Patient consent Obtained.

  • See Editorial, p 987

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles