Article Text

Download PDFPDF
A retrospective study of the influence of the vitreomacular interface on macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion
  1. Rishi P Singh,
  2. Karishma A Habbu,
  3. Rumneek Bedi,
  4. Fabiana Q Silva,
  5. Justis P Ehlers,
  6. Andrew P Schachat,
  7. Jonathan E Sears,
  8. Sunil K Srivastava,
  9. Peter K Kaiser,
  10. Alex Yuan
  1. Cole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Rishi P Singh, Cole Eye Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Mail Code i32, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA; drrishisingh{at}


Aims To compare anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment outcomes for macular oedema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) based on vitreoretinal interface (VRI) status.

Methods This retrospective case series includes treatment-naive eyes diagnosed with RVO and treated with anti-VEGF injections. Eyes were stratified based on international VRI classification schema at baseline into three groups—vitreomacular traction (group A), no posterior vitreous detachment (PVD) (group B) and PVD without vitreomacular attachment (group C). Fifty-two eyes were identified based on inclusion/exclusion criteria. The primary endpoint was change in central subfield thickness (CST) on optical coherence tomography at 6 months.

Results There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics of patients with RVO when stratified by VRI subgroups. After 6 months of treatment, there was no statistically significant difference in the change in CST from baseline between VRI cohorts (p=0.11). There was a trend demonstrating the greatest improvement in CST in eyes in group A compared with eyes in groups B and C (−224.13 μm, −160.88 μm and −50.92 μm, respectively, p=0.11 between cohorts). Mean change in logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution visual acuity from baseline to month 6 in group A compared with groups B and C was −0.25, −0.14 and −0.13, respectively (p=0.64 between cohorts).

Conclusions We did not identify an association between VRI status and treatment outcomes with anti-VEGF agents for ME secondary to RVO.

  • Macula
  • Retina
  • Vitreous

Statistics from

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.


  • Contributors All authors met the ICJME criteria: (1) substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data or analysis and interpretation of data; (2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content and (3) final approval of the version to be published.

  • Funding Support provided by Research to Prevent Blindness (Cole Eye Institutional Grant).

  • Competing interests RPS: Regeneron (grants and personal fees), Alcon (grants and personal fees), Genentech (grants and personal fees), Shire (personal fees), Zeiss (grants), Biogen (personal fees), during the conduct of the study; JPE: Thrombogenics (grants and personal fees), Alcon (personal fees), Zeiss (personal fees), Leica (personal fees), Genentech (grants), Regeneron (grants), Santen (personal fees), Alimera (personal fees), outside the submitted work; APS: Cleveland Clinic (full-time employee), State of Ohio (part-time employee), Elsevier (Royalties), American Academy of Ophthalmology (Honorarium), Easton Capital (possible future payments, nothing to date); SKS: Santen (personal fees), Bausch and Lomb (grants and personal fees), Synergetics (personal fees), Zeiss (grants and personal fees), Sanofi (grants and personal fees), Optos (personal fees), Regeneron (grants and personal fees), Allergan (grants and personal fees), outside the submitted work; PKK: Alcon (personal fees), Bayer (personal fees), Regeneron (personal fees), Novartis (personal fees), Kanghong (personal fees), Thrombgenics (personal fees), outside the submitted work.

  • Ethics approval Cleveland Clinic Institutional Review Board.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.