Limits...
Relationship between variations in posterior vitreous detachment and visual prognosis in idiopathic epiretinal membranes.

Ota A, Tanaka Y, Toyoda F, Shimmura M, Kinoshita N, Takano H, Kakehashi A - Clin Ophthalmol (2015)

Bottom Line: The logMAR BCVA at the first visit was the worst in the P-PVD without shrinkage (M) group (0.22±0.35) compared with the no-PVD group (-0.019±0.07; P<0.01) and the C-PVD group (0.029±0.08; P<0.05).The logMAR BCVA 2 years later was also worst in the P-PVD without shrinkage (M) group (0.39±0.35) compared with the no-PVD group (0.04±0.13) and the C-PVD with collapse group (0.03±0.09; P<0.05 for both comparisons).The change in the logMAR BCVA over the 2-year follow-up period was worst in the P-PVD without shrinkage (M) group (0.17±0.23) compared with the no-PVD group (0.06±0.14) and the C-PVD with collapse group (0.0009±0.09; P<0.05 for both comparisons).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Ophthalmology, Jichi Medical University, Saitama Medical Center, Omiya-ku, Saitama, Japan.

ABSTRACT

Purpose: To clarify the relationship between variations in posterior vitreous detachments (PVDs) and visual prognoses in idiopathic epiretinal membranes (ERMs).

Methods: In this retrospective, observational, and consecutive case series, we observed variations in PVDs in 37 patients (mean age, 65.7±11.0 years) with ERMs and followed them for 2 years. Three PVD types were found biomicroscopically: no PVD, complete PVD with collapse (C-PVD with collapse), and partial PVD without shrinkage, with persistent vitreous attachment to the macula through the premacular hole of the posterior hyaloid membrane (P-PVD without shrinkage [M]). The best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was measured and converted to the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) BCVA at the first visit and 2 years later.

Results: No PVD was observed in 16 of the 37 eyes (mean age, 61.3±11.3 years), C-PVD with collapse in 11 of the 37 eyes (mean age, 69.1±9.9 years), and P-PVD without shrinkage (M) in 10 of the 37 eyes (mean age, 69.3±10.9 years). The logMAR BCVA at the first visit was the worst in the P-PVD without shrinkage (M) group (0.22±0.35) compared with the no-PVD group (-0.019±0.07; P<0.01) and the C-PVD group (0.029±0.08; P<0.05). The logMAR BCVA 2 years later was also worst in the P-PVD without shrinkage (M) group (0.39±0.35) compared with the no-PVD group (0.04±0.13) and the C-PVD with collapse group (0.03±0.09; P<0.05 for both comparisons). The change in the logMAR BCVA over the 2-year follow-up period was worst in the P-PVD without shrinkage (M) group (0.17±0.23) compared with the no-PVD group (0.06±0.14) and the C-PVD with collapse group (0.0009±0.09; P<0.05 for both comparisons).

Conclusion: Cases with an ERM with a P-PVD without shrinkage (M) had a worse visual prognosis than those with an ERM with no PVD and C-PVD with collapse.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

The visual prognosis in each group.Notes: The logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution of the best-corrected visual acuity (logMAR BCVA) is worst in the P-PVD without shrinkage (M) group compared with the no-PVD group and the C-PVD with collapse group. The logMAR BCVA 2 years later is also worst in the P-PVD without shrinkage (M) group compared with the no-PVD group and the C-PVD group. The logMAR BCVA has deteriorated significantly during the 2-year follow-up period in the P-PVD group. However, in the no-PVD group and the C-PVD with collapse group, the logMAR BCVA has not deteriorated significantly during the 2-year follow-up. *P<0.05, **P<0.01.Abbreviations: PVD, posterior vitreous detachment; P-PVD, partial posterior vitreous detachment; C-PVD, complete posterior vitreous detachment.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4697789&req=5

f4-opth-10-007: The visual prognosis in each group.Notes: The logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution of the best-corrected visual acuity (logMAR BCVA) is worst in the P-PVD without shrinkage (M) group compared with the no-PVD group and the C-PVD with collapse group. The logMAR BCVA 2 years later is also worst in the P-PVD without shrinkage (M) group compared with the no-PVD group and the C-PVD group. The logMAR BCVA has deteriorated significantly during the 2-year follow-up period in the P-PVD group. However, in the no-PVD group and the C-PVD with collapse group, the logMAR BCVA has not deteriorated significantly during the 2-year follow-up. *P<0.05, **P<0.01.Abbreviations: PVD, posterior vitreous detachment; P-PVD, partial posterior vitreous detachment; C-PVD, complete posterior vitreous detachment.

Mentions: At the first visit, the logMAR BCVA was the worst in the P-PVD without shrinkage (M) group (0.22±0.35) compared with the no-PVD group (−0.019±0.07; P<0.01) and the C-PVD with collapse group (0.029±0.08; P<0.05). Two years later, the logMAR BCVA remained the worst in the P-PVD without shrinkage (M) group (0.39±0.35) compared with the no-PVD group (0.04±0.13) and the C-PVD group with collapse (0.03±0.09; P<0.05 for both comparisons). The logMAR BCVA in the P-PVD group without shrinkage (M) (0.17±0.23) deteriorated significantly (P<0.05) during the 2-year follow-up period. However, the logMAR BCVA did not deteriorate significantly in the no-PVD group (0.06±0.14) and the C-PVD with collapse group (0.0009±0.09) during the 2-year follow-up (Figure 4).


Relationship between variations in posterior vitreous detachment and visual prognosis in idiopathic epiretinal membranes.

Ota A, Tanaka Y, Toyoda F, Shimmura M, Kinoshita N, Takano H, Kakehashi A - Clin Ophthalmol (2015)

The visual prognosis in each group.Notes: The logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution of the best-corrected visual acuity (logMAR BCVA) is worst in the P-PVD without shrinkage (M) group compared with the no-PVD group and the C-PVD with collapse group. The logMAR BCVA 2 years later is also worst in the P-PVD without shrinkage (M) group compared with the no-PVD group and the C-PVD group. The logMAR BCVA has deteriorated significantly during the 2-year follow-up period in the P-PVD group. However, in the no-PVD group and the C-PVD with collapse group, the logMAR BCVA has not deteriorated significantly during the 2-year follow-up. *P<0.05, **P<0.01.Abbreviations: PVD, posterior vitreous detachment; P-PVD, partial posterior vitreous detachment; C-PVD, complete posterior vitreous detachment.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4697789&req=5

f4-opth-10-007: The visual prognosis in each group.Notes: The logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution of the best-corrected visual acuity (logMAR BCVA) is worst in the P-PVD without shrinkage (M) group compared with the no-PVD group and the C-PVD with collapse group. The logMAR BCVA 2 years later is also worst in the P-PVD without shrinkage (M) group compared with the no-PVD group and the C-PVD group. The logMAR BCVA has deteriorated significantly during the 2-year follow-up period in the P-PVD group. However, in the no-PVD group and the C-PVD with collapse group, the logMAR BCVA has not deteriorated significantly during the 2-year follow-up. *P<0.05, **P<0.01.Abbreviations: PVD, posterior vitreous detachment; P-PVD, partial posterior vitreous detachment; C-PVD, complete posterior vitreous detachment.
Mentions: At the first visit, the logMAR BCVA was the worst in the P-PVD without shrinkage (M) group (0.22±0.35) compared with the no-PVD group (−0.019±0.07; P<0.01) and the C-PVD with collapse group (0.029±0.08; P<0.05). Two years later, the logMAR BCVA remained the worst in the P-PVD without shrinkage (M) group (0.39±0.35) compared with the no-PVD group (0.04±0.13) and the C-PVD group with collapse (0.03±0.09; P<0.05 for both comparisons). The logMAR BCVA in the P-PVD group without shrinkage (M) (0.17±0.23) deteriorated significantly (P<0.05) during the 2-year follow-up period. However, the logMAR BCVA did not deteriorate significantly in the no-PVD group (0.06±0.14) and the C-PVD with collapse group (0.0009±0.09) during the 2-year follow-up (Figure 4).

Bottom Line: The logMAR BCVA at the first visit was the worst in the P-PVD without shrinkage (M) group (0.22±0.35) compared with the no-PVD group (-0.019±0.07; P<0.01) and the C-PVD group (0.029±0.08; P<0.05).The logMAR BCVA 2 years later was also worst in the P-PVD without shrinkage (M) group (0.39±0.35) compared with the no-PVD group (0.04±0.13) and the C-PVD with collapse group (0.03±0.09; P<0.05 for both comparisons).The change in the logMAR BCVA over the 2-year follow-up period was worst in the P-PVD without shrinkage (M) group (0.17±0.23) compared with the no-PVD group (0.06±0.14) and the C-PVD with collapse group (0.0009±0.09; P<0.05 for both comparisons).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Ophthalmology, Jichi Medical University, Saitama Medical Center, Omiya-ku, Saitama, Japan.

ABSTRACT

Purpose: To clarify the relationship between variations in posterior vitreous detachments (PVDs) and visual prognoses in idiopathic epiretinal membranes (ERMs).

Methods: In this retrospective, observational, and consecutive case series, we observed variations in PVDs in 37 patients (mean age, 65.7±11.0 years) with ERMs and followed them for 2 years. Three PVD types were found biomicroscopically: no PVD, complete PVD with collapse (C-PVD with collapse), and partial PVD without shrinkage, with persistent vitreous attachment to the macula through the premacular hole of the posterior hyaloid membrane (P-PVD without shrinkage [M]). The best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was measured and converted to the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) BCVA at the first visit and 2 years later.

Results: No PVD was observed in 16 of the 37 eyes (mean age, 61.3±11.3 years), C-PVD with collapse in 11 of the 37 eyes (mean age, 69.1±9.9 years), and P-PVD without shrinkage (M) in 10 of the 37 eyes (mean age, 69.3±10.9 years). The logMAR BCVA at the first visit was the worst in the P-PVD without shrinkage (M) group (0.22±0.35) compared with the no-PVD group (-0.019±0.07; P<0.01) and the C-PVD group (0.029±0.08; P<0.05). The logMAR BCVA 2 years later was also worst in the P-PVD without shrinkage (M) group (0.39±0.35) compared with the no-PVD group (0.04±0.13) and the C-PVD with collapse group (0.03±0.09; P<0.05 for both comparisons). The change in the logMAR BCVA over the 2-year follow-up period was worst in the P-PVD without shrinkage (M) group (0.17±0.23) compared with the no-PVD group (0.06±0.14) and the C-PVD with collapse group (0.0009±0.09; P<0.05 for both comparisons).

Conclusion: Cases with an ERM with a P-PVD without shrinkage (M) had a worse visual prognosis than those with an ERM with no PVD and C-PVD with collapse.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus