We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
OBSERVATIONAL STUDY
Comparing functional and morphologic characteristics of lamellar macular holes with and without lamellar hole-associated epiretinal proliferation.
Retina 2015 April
PURPOSE: To compare the functional and morphologic characteristics and evolution of lamellar macular holes (LMHs) with and without lamellar hole-associated epiretinal proliferation (LHEP).
METHODS: This was a retrospective observational case review of 145 eyes of 136 patients with LMH seen in a vitreoretinal clinical practice, and the eyes were subdivided into 2 groups based on the presence or absence of LHEP. Main outcome measures were logarithm of minimal angle of resolution (logMAR) visual acuity and morphologic characteristics as seen with spectral domain optical coherence tomography over retrospective follow-up.
RESULTS: In 62 eyes (42.7%), LHEP was detected, while 83 eyes (57.3%) had the presence of epiretinal membrane without LHEP. The mean logMAR visual acuity in eyes with LHEP was 0.51 (20/65 Snellen equivalent), which was significantly poorer than that in the eyes without LHEP at 0.33 (20/43 Snellen equivalent, P = 0.002). Multivariate analysis showed that the presence of LHEP was significantly associated with larger LMH diameter at the middle retinal level (P = 0.01) and thinner retinal thickness at the base of the LMH (P < 0.001). A higher proportion of eyes with LHEP (88%) had ellipsoid disruption compared with eyes without LHEP (24%, P = 0.001). Over the mean retrospective follow-up of 26 months, 5% of eyes with LHEP had functional decline of 0.3 logMAR visual acuity compared with 4% of eyes without LHEP (P = 0.99), whereas 18% of eyes with LHEP had morphologic progression compared with 13% of eyes without LHEP (P = 0.49).
CONCLUSION: Eyes with LMH and LHEP were associated with poorer visual acuity, larger LMH diameters, thinner retinal thickness, and higher incidence of ellipsoid disruption compared with eyes without LHEP, suggesting a process involving more severe retinal tissue loss and injury. Both LMH with and without LHEP seemed to be stable configurations over time.
METHODS: This was a retrospective observational case review of 145 eyes of 136 patients with LMH seen in a vitreoretinal clinical practice, and the eyes were subdivided into 2 groups based on the presence or absence of LHEP. Main outcome measures were logarithm of minimal angle of resolution (logMAR) visual acuity and morphologic characteristics as seen with spectral domain optical coherence tomography over retrospective follow-up.
RESULTS: In 62 eyes (42.7%), LHEP was detected, while 83 eyes (57.3%) had the presence of epiretinal membrane without LHEP. The mean logMAR visual acuity in eyes with LHEP was 0.51 (20/65 Snellen equivalent), which was significantly poorer than that in the eyes without LHEP at 0.33 (20/43 Snellen equivalent, P = 0.002). Multivariate analysis showed that the presence of LHEP was significantly associated with larger LMH diameter at the middle retinal level (P = 0.01) and thinner retinal thickness at the base of the LMH (P < 0.001). A higher proportion of eyes with LHEP (88%) had ellipsoid disruption compared with eyes without LHEP (24%, P = 0.001). Over the mean retrospective follow-up of 26 months, 5% of eyes with LHEP had functional decline of 0.3 logMAR visual acuity compared with 4% of eyes without LHEP (P = 0.99), whereas 18% of eyes with LHEP had morphologic progression compared with 13% of eyes without LHEP (P = 0.49).
CONCLUSION: Eyes with LMH and LHEP were associated with poorer visual acuity, larger LMH diameters, thinner retinal thickness, and higher incidence of ellipsoid disruption compared with eyes without LHEP, suggesting a process involving more severe retinal tissue loss and injury. Both LMH with and without LHEP seemed to be stable configurations over time.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app