Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In Brief Purpose: To evaluate functional and anatomical retinal recovery according to patient age using spectral domain optical coherence tomography in eyes with surgically closed macular holes. Methods: We retrospectively studied 83 eyes with anatomically closed idiopathic macular holes after surgery confirmed by spectral domain optical coherence tomography. Patients were divided into four subgroups based on age (Group 1: ≤ 60, Group 2: 61–65, Group 3: 66–70, Group 4: > 70). Best-corrected visual acuity and reconstruction of the external limiting membrane and ellipsoid zone after surgery were documented for 12 months. Results: Mean patient age was 64.5 ± 9.8 years (range 44–81). Mean visual improvement in logMAR units (ETDRS letter score) at 12 months was worse in older age subgroups (Group 1: 0.4 ± 0.3 [20], Group 2: 0.4 ± 0.3 [20], Group 3: 0.2 ± 0.3 [10], Group 4: 0.1 ± 0.3 [5], P = 0.001). When age was more than 65 years, total number of eyes with restored retinal microstructure after surgery was lower (22 eyes, 53.7%; 32 eyes, 76.2%; P = 0.018) and time (months) to structural recovery was longer (10.2, 7.1, P < 0.001) than age under 65 years. Visual improvement corresponded to recovery of the outer retinal layers. In multivariate analysis, patients of older age (odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.89–0.93) had less visual improvement at month 12. Conclusion: Poor visual outcomes and delayed microstructural recovery occurred in older subjects after anatomically closed macular hole surgery. Older age may be indicative of poor clinical outcome in repaired macular holes. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of age on visual outcome and retinal microstructure using spectral domain optical coherence tomography in eyes with surgically closed macular holes. As the clinical recovery decreased with increasing age, the authors analyzed the cause of this age-dependent outcome, which might be related to impaired neuro-regeneration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: