DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS OF ACTIVE INTERNAL LIMITING MEMBRANE PEELING DURING EPIRETINAL MEMBRANE SURGERY: Microperimetric Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to assess the microperimetric consequences of active internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling during idiopathic epimacular membrane (IEMM) surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective monocentric study included 32 eyes of 31 consecutive patients who underwent IEMM surgery. Internal limiting membrane integrity was assessed by ILM Blue staining after IEMM removal: peeling was spontaneous (Group S) or active (Group A). Preprocedure and postprocedure (1 and 6 months) examinations were performed using visual acuity determination, spectral domain optical coherence tomography and microperimetry. RESULTS: Twenty-two eyes had an "active ILM peeling" and 10 a "spontaneous ILM peeling." Both groups had comparable and significant improvements in visual acuity 6 months after surgery (+1.82 lines [+9 letters] [Group A] and +1.51 lines [+8 letters] [Group S], P < 0.01) associated with a significant reduction in optical coherence tomography central thickness (-99.9 µm [Group A], P < 0.01 and -62.2 µm [Group S], P = 0.05). Six months after surgery, the microperimetry showed more numerous and deeper microscotomas in the Group A than in the Group S (change in the number of microscotomas: 2.09 vs. -0.10, P = 0.06; change in deficit severity score: 13.18 dB vs. -2 dB, P < 0.01 for Group A and S, respectively). The number of microscotomas and also severity were increased in 63.6% of Group A patients and in only 20% of Group S patients. Microscotomas were most frequently located in IEMM and/or ILM areas. DISCUSSION: Internal limiting membrane peeling has progressively become generalized in IEMM surgery to reduce recurrences. This additional procedure does not change the postoperative visual acuity but increases the development of deeper microscotomas. The real impact on the quality of vision remains unclear. CONCLUSION: Active ILM peeling in IEMM surgery may be responsible for visual impairment related to its microtraumatic effects.

Pros and cons of internal limiting membrane peeling during epiretinal membrane surgery: a randomised clinical trial with microperimetry (PEELING).

BACKGROUND: After idiopathic epiretinal membrane (iERM) removal, it is unclear whether the internal limiting membrane (ILM) should be removed. The objective was to assess if active ILM peeling after iERM removal could induce microscotomas. METHODS: The PEELING study is a national randomised clinical trial. When no spontaneous ILM peeling occurred, patients were randomised either to the ILM peeling or no ILM peeling group. Groups were compared at the month 1 (M1), M6 and M12 visits in terms of microperimetry, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and optical coherence tomography findings. The primary outcome was the difference in microscotoma number between baseline and M6. RESULTS: 213 patients were included, 101 experienced spontaneous ILM peeling and 100 were randomised to the ILM peeling (n=51) or no ILM peeling group (n=49). The difference in microscotoma number between both groups was significant at M1 (3.9 more microscotomas in ILM peeling group, (0.8;7.0) p=0.0155) but not at M6 (2.1 more microscotomas in ILM peeling group (-0.5;4.7) p=0.1155). Only in the no ILM peeling group, the number of microscotomas significantly decreased and the mean retinal sensitivity significantly improved. The ERM recurred in nine patients in the no ILM peeling group (19.6%) versus zero in the ILM peeling group (p=0.0008): two of them underwent revision surgery. There was no difference in mean BCVA and microperimetry between patients experiencing or not a recurrence at M12. CONCLUSION: Spontaneous ILM peeling is very common. Active ILM peeling prevents anatomical ERM recurrence but may induce retinal impairments and delay visual recovery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02146144.

Fluocinolone Acetonide Implant Injected 1 Month after Dexamethasone Implant for Diabetic Macular Oedema: the ILUVI1MOIS Study.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of fluocinolone acetonide implant (FAci) injected 1 month after the last dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEXi) in chronic diabetic macular oedema (DME) patients. METHODS: Retrospective multicentric study conducted in pseudophakic patients with chronic DME frequently treated with dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEXi; time to DME recurrence ≤ 6 months), receiving FAci 1 month after the last DEXi, with at least a 6-month follow-up. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT) on optical coherence tomography, intraocular pressure (IOP) and additional treatments were assessed on the day of FAci injection (M0), 1 (M1) and 3 months (M3) later and then every 3 months. RESULTS: A total of 41 eyes from 34 patients were included. At M0, patients' mean age was 68.7 ± 9.8 years, the mean DME duration was 63.9 ± 22.9 months, the mean interval between two DEXi was 14.2 ± 3.3 weeks. M12 data were available for 71% of patients. At baseline, the mean BCVA, CMT and IOP were 63.2 ± 16.6 letters, 299.4 ± 103.3 µm, and 16.2 ± 4.5 mmHg, respectively, and remained stable during the follow-up. At M12, 14% of patients required additional intravitreal treatments. CONCLUSION: In pseudophakic patients with chronic DME showing good response to DEXi but requiring repeated injections every < 6 months, switching to FAci 1 month after the last DEXi was effective and safe. Further prospective randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings, and to determine the best interval between the last DEXi and the first FAci.

Predictive values of initial semi-quantitative assessment of relative afferent pupillary defect for neovascularization in central retinal vein occlusion.

PURPOSE: To measure the predictive values of relative afferent pupillary defect (RAPD) assessed semi-quantitatively, and visual acuity (VA) at onset of central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO), for neovascularization. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of the TROXHEMO trial that included patients with CRVO within 30 days after the onset. Inclusion criteria were as follows: semi-quantitative RAPD assessment at diagnosis and/or at one month. RAPD was 'severe' if ≥ 0.9 log. Exclusion criteria were as follows: prophylactic panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) before neovascularization. RESULTS: Among the 119 patients enrolled in the main centre, 101 were analysed. 26 had a neovascular complication during the twelve months of follow-up: rubeosis (19), glaucoma (7) and posterior neovascularization (15). The mean time to onset of a neovascular complication was 4.7 months (1 to 12, median 3 months). All the patients who had a neovascular complication had RAPD at first examination or at one month (negative predictive value (NPV) = 100%) but the positive predictive value (PPV) was low (31%, 95% CI [21%; 42%]). The association 'severe RAPD or VA < 35 letters (ETDRS) at inclusion or at one month' was the best compromise between PPV (53%, [39%; 68%]) and NPV (96%, [92%; 100%]). CONCLUSION: To predict neovascularization, RAPD should be routinely evaluated with filters: the risk of neovascular complication is (a) almost nil if there is no RAPD, (b) very low if there is no severe RAPD and if VA is higher than 35 letters, and (c) higher than 50% if RAPD is ≥ 0.9 log or if VA is less than 35 letters.

Does internal limiting membrane peeling during epiretinal membrane surgery induce microscotomas on microperimetry? Study protocol for PEELING, a randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The epiretinal membrane (ERM) is a degenerative condition associated with age, which can cause loss of vision and/or metamorphopsia. The treatment of symptomatic ERM involves surgical removal including a vitrectomy followed by peeling of the ERM using a microforceps. As the internal limiting membrane (ILM) is adherent to the ERM, it is sometimes removed with it (spontaneous peeling). If ILM remains in place, it can be removed to reduce ERM recurrence. However, it is important to clarify the safety of ILM peeling, while it increases surgical risks and cause histological disorganization of the retina that can lead to microscotomas, may be responsible for definitive visual discomfort. METHODS: PEELING is a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blind, and multicentered trial with two parallel arms. This study investigates the benefit/risk ratio of active ILM peeling among individuals undergoing ERM surgery without spontaneous ILM peeling. Randomization is done in the operating room after ERM removal if ILM remains in place. After randomization, the two groups-"active peeling of the ILM" and "no peeling of the ILM"-are compared during a total of three follow-up visits scheduled at month 1, month 6, and month 12. Primary endpoint is the difference in microscotomas before surgery and 6 months after surgery. Patients with spontaneous peeling are not randomized and are included in the ancillary study with the same follow-up visits and the same examinations as the principal study. Relevant inclusion criteria involve individuals aged > 18 years living with idiopathic symptomatic ERM, including pseudophakic patients with transparent posterior capsule or open capsule or lensed patients with age-related cataracts. The calculated sample size corresponds to 53 randomized eyes (one eye/patient) per arm that means 106 randomized eyes (106 randomized patients) in total and a maximum of 222 included patients (116 spontaneous peeling). DISCUSSION: ILM peeling is often practiced in ERM surgery to reduce ERM recurrence. It does not impair postoperative visual acuity, but it increases the surgical risks and causes anatomical damages. If active ILM peeling is significantly associated with more microscotomas, it may contraindicate the ILM peeling during primitive idiopathic ERM surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02146144. Registered on 22 May 2014. Recruitment is still ongoing.