Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Dec;258(12):2611-2619.
doi: 10.1007/s00417-020-04950-y. Epub 2020 Oct 3.

Comparison of vitreoretinal disorders in fellow eyes of lamellar macular holes versus epiretinal membrane foveoschisis

Ismael Chehaibou  1   2 , Niranjan Manoharan  1 , Andrea Govetto  3 , Anibal Andrés Francone  4 , David Sarraf  1 , Jean-Pierre Hubschman  5
Affiliations

Comparison of vitreoretinal disorders in fellow eyes of lamellar macular holes versus epiretinal membrane foveoschisis

Ismael Chehaibou et al. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2020 Dec.

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate and compare the rate and characteristics of vitreoretinal disorders in fellow eyes of lamellar macular holes (LMH) versus epiretinal membrane foveoschisis (ERMF).

Methods: Included patients in this retrospective study were divided into two groups based on spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) features of their primary eye: LMH (group A) and ERMF (group B).

Results: Ninety-four patients were enrolled: 59 (62.8%) in group A and 35 (37.2%) in group B. Fellow eyes in group A had a higher rate of retinal detachment (8/59 [13.6%] vs. 0/35 [0%], P = 0.024), and full-thickness macular hole (FTMH) (11/59 [18.6%] vs. 2/35 [5.7%], P = 0.079), compared with fellow eyes in group B. In group A, 4/59 patients (6.8%) showed a bilateral LMH while none from group B had a LMH in their fellow eye (0/35 [0%]), P = 0.293. Additionally, epiretinal proliferation was noted in 30/59 (50.8%) fellow eyes in group A versus 3/35 (8.6%) fellow eyes in group B, P < 0.001. Longitudinal data were available for 80/94 patients. Over a mean follow-up of 37.4 ± 29.9 months, 1/48 (2.1%) fellow eyes from group A developed a FTMH and 2/48 (4.2%) developed a LMH, while no FTMH or LMH occurred in fellow eyes of group B.

Conclusions: Fellow eyes of LMH showed a high rate of macular and peripheral vitreoretinal disorders. In addition, epiretinal proliferation was detected in a higher number of fellow eyes of LMH versus ERMF. These findings suggest a bilateral process in eyes of patients with LMH.

Keywords: Epiretinal membrane foveoschisis; Epiretinal proliferation; Lamellar macular hole; Müller glial cells; Spectral-domain optical coherence tomography.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Haouchine B, Massin P, Tadayoni R et al (2004) Diagnosis of macular pseudoholes and lamellar macular holes by optical coherence tomography. Am J Ophthalmol 138:732–739 - DOI
    1. Gaudric A, Aloulou Y, Tadayoni R et al (2013) Macular pseudoholes with lamellar cleavage of their edge remain pseudoholes. Am J Ophthalmol 155:733–742 - DOI
    1. Govetto A, Dacquay Y, Farajzadeh M et al (2016) Lamellar macular hole: two distinct clinical entities? Am J Ophthalmol 164:99–109 - DOI
    1. Gass JD (1975) Lamellar macular hole: a complication of cystoid macular edema after cataract extraction: a clinicopathologic case report. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 73:231–250 - PubMed
    1. Duker JS, Kaiser PK, Binder S et al (2013) The international vitreomacular traction study group classification of vitreomacular adhesion, traction, and macular hole. Ophthalmology 120:2611–2619 - DOI

LinkOut - more resources