Glyxambi
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 2248
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 67  |  Issue : 9  |  Page : 1448-1454

Internal limiting membrane peel: Does it change the success rate of primary vitrectomy without belt buckle in rhegmatogenous retinal detachments?


1 Vitreo-Retinal Surgeon, Sarakshi Netralaya, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India
2 Vitreo-Retinal Surgeon and ROP Specialist, Sarakshi Netralaya, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India
3 Data Analysis Group, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Shilpi H Narnaware
Vitreo-Retinal Surgeon and ROP Specialist, Sarakshi Netralaya, 19, Rajiv Nagar, Wardha Road, Nagpur - 440 025, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_1685_18

Rights and Permissions

Purpose: To compare the anatomic success of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) after internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling at macular area and macular plus peripapillary area versus no peeling in rhegmatogenous retinal detachments (RRD). Methods: A prospective observational study between July 2014 and March 2017 conducted on 289 eyes of 287 patients with RRD were randomly assigned to three treatment procedures, viz., PPV with no ILM peeling, PPV with macular peeling, and PPV with macular plus peripapillary peeling. Recurrent RD (ReRD) was treated as an event and accordingly the overall primary (PS) and final success (FS) rates were obtained. The risk of ReRD associated with peeling procedures after adjusting for risk factors were obtained using Cox-proportional hazard analysis. Results: The PS percentage for no peel, macular, and macular plus peripapillary procedures were 77.78% (70/90), 82.18% (83/101), and 94.89% (93/98; maximum), respectively, which was statistically significant with a P value of 0.003. The FS percentage for no peel, macular, and macular plus peripapillary were 93.33%, 95.04%, and 100%, respectively, which was significantly different with a P value of 0.048. With reference to no peeling, the adjusted hazard ratio for macular peeling was 0.841 [95% CI: 0.44–1.60] while 0.235 [95% CI: 0.088–0.626] for macular plus peripapillary peeling. Conclusion: The anatomic success rate of PPV with macular plus peripapillary ILM peeling was significantly higher as compared to no peel category. The hazard of ReRD in patients undergoing macular plus peripapillary peel was significantly reduced as compared to no peel procedure.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed194    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded80    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal