Pneumatic retinopexy preceded by drainage of subretinal fluid for the treatment of severe bullous retinal detachment.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety outcomes of scleral buckling (SB) and drainage-injection-pneumoretinopexy (DIP), a modified pneumatic retinopexy technique, in which, before gas injection, subretinal fluid is drained with a simultaneous injection of balanced salt solution (BSS) in the vitreous chamber, for the treatment of severe superior bullous rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (SBRD). METHODS: This prospective, randomized, comparative study included 58 eyes with severe SBRD that were randomized 1:1 to undergo SB or DIP. The main outcome measures included success rate, visual acuity, mean change in refractive error and surgery duration. RESULTS: The primary anatomic success rate was 93% for both procedures. Both groups showed significantly improved visual acuity after surgery. The change in refractive error and surgery duration was significantly higher in the SB group. Drainage-injection-pneumoretinopexy (DIP) appeared to be less traumatic, but with a longer persistence of subretinal fluid in a greater number of patients. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggested that both SB and DIP are safe and effective treatments yielding functional and anatomical recovery in patients with severe SBRD. However, the DIP technique may be easier and less costly, with a success rate similar to that of SB.

PEELING OF THE INTERNAL LIMITING MEMBRANE WITH FOVEAL SPARING FOR TREATMENT OF DEGENERATIVE LAMELLAR MACULAR HOLE.

PURPOSE: To compare the functional and anatomical results of fovea-sparing internal limiting membrane peeling during vitrectomy with those of observation for degenerative lamellar macular hole with lamellar hole-associated epiretinal proliferation. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, comparative pilot study. METHODS: Thirty-six eyes were randomized to undergo surgery with foveal internal limiting membrane sparing (Group S) or observation only (Group C). The main outcome measures were foveal retinal sensitivity, visual acuity, and central retinal thickness. RESULTS: After 6 months, a significant difference was found in foveal retinal sensitivity between Group S (12.8 ± 1.7 dB) and Group C (9.39 ± 1.8 dB; P < 0.001). Similarly, best-corrected visual acuity improved in Group S and remained stable in Group C (respectively, 0.17 ± 0.13 and 0.46 ± 0.21 logMAR; P < 0.001). A significant increase in central retinal thickness was observed in Group S, but not in Group C (272 ± 24 vs. 147 ± 20 µm, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Fovea-sparing internal limiting membrane peeling is a feasible treatment for degenerative lamellar macular hole with lamellar hole-associated epiretinal proliferation, yielding better improvements in best-corrected visual acuity and foveal retinal sensitivity than observation alone. Further studies are needed to optimize this new surgical approach.

FOVEA-SPARING VERSUS COMPLETE INTERNAL LIMITING MEMBRANE PEELING IN VITRECTOMY FOR THE TREATMENT OF MACULAR HOLES.

PURPOSE: To compare the anatomical and functional outcomes of vitrectomy involving complete internal limiting membrane peeling (CP) with those of vitrectomy involving fovea-sparing internal limiting membrane peeling (FSP) for the treatment of macular holes measuring >250 µm. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, comparative study included 46 eyes with a medium or large macular hole that was randomized to undergo complete (CP group) or fovea-sparing (FSP group) internal limiting membrane peeling during vitrectomy. The main outcome measures included the foveal retinal sensitivity, visual acuity, and central retinal thickness. RESULTS: Both groups showed significantly improved foveal retinal sensitivity after surgery; the mean foveal retinal sensitivity change at 12 months after surgery was +2.8 ± 2.1 dB in the CP group and +7.2 ± 2.3 dB in the FSP group. The visual acuity also showed a significant improvement in both groups, with no significant differences in values at any time point. Regarding central retinal thickness, there was a significant decrease in the CP group and no change in the FSP group. Nicks or dimples in the inner retinal layers were visible in the fovea and perifovea of nine eyes in the CP group. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that both CP and FSP are safe and effective treatments leading to functional and anatomical improvements in patients with all size macular holes. However, the fovea-sparing technique may provide better functional outcomes because of a greater improvement in foveal retinal sensitivity.