Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In Brief Purpose: To report outcomes and prognostic factors after epiretinal membrane peeling in patients with previous rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repair. Methods: A consecutive case series. Best-corrected visual acuity and optical coherence tomography characteristics were analyzed before and after epiretinal membrane surgery. Results: Fifty-three eyes were analyzed. Best-corrected visual acuity improved by a mean of 10 letters at 1 month (N = 45; P = 0.001), 15 at 3 months (N = 42; P < 0.001), 11 at 6 months (N = 35; P = 0.001), and 16 at 12 months (N = 33; P < 0.001). The mean optical coherence tomography central foveal thickness decreased by 141 (N = 22; P < 0.001), 185 (N = 24; P < 0.001), 180 (N = 17; P = 0.001), and 151 μm (N = 9; P = 0.017) at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Better preoperative best-corrected visual acuity correlated with better best-corrected visual acuity at all follow-up visits (P ≤ 0.001). Intact preoperative inner segment/outer segment junction and external limiting membrane line, but not the change in central foveal thickness or location of fluid, correlated with better postoperative best-corrected visual acuity through 6 months. Conclusion: Epiretinal membrane peeling after previous rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repair resulted in significant improvements in visual acuity and optical coherence tomography thickness, even in eyes with previous macula-involving rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Better preoperative visual acuity and intact outer retinal layers by optical coherence tomography were the main prognostic factors for visual outcomes. Epiretinal membrane peeling after rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repair resulted in significant visual and anatomical improvements. Better preoperative visual acuity was the best predictor of postoperative visual acuity. Intact preoperative inner segment/outer segment ellipsoid layer and external limiting membrane lines correlated with better vision.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Weng et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: