Vitrectomy in Small idiopathic MAcuLar hoLe (SMALL) study: Internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling
| Title: | Vitrectomy in Small idiopathic MAcuLar hoLe (SMALL) study: Internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Marolo P.; Caselgrandi P.; Fallico M.; Parisi G.; Borrelli E.; Ricardi F.; Gelormini F.; Ceroni L.; Reibaldi M.; Ferrari T. M.; Lorusso M.; Primavera V.; Giuliani G.; Mariotti C.; Lupidi M.; Ventre L.; Pintore G.; Motta L.; Ripa M.; Boscia F.; Boscia G.; Romano M. R.; Ferrara M.; Miroslav K.; Marchina D.; Parolini B.; Peiretti E.; Marchiori V.; Dell'Omo R.; Affatato M.; Avitabile T.; Russo A.; Longo A.; Scorcia V.; Carnevali A.; Mastropasqua R.; Toto L.; Vaiano A. S.; Merli R.; Mura M.; Pellegrini M.; Giansanti F.; Nicolosi C.; Badino M.; Lavorante N. P.; Sandinha M. T.; D'Alterio F. M.; Toro M. D.; Rejdak R.; Chelazzi P.; Azzolini C.; Viola F.; Dona C.; Cereda M. G.; Casaluci M.; Codenotti M.; Iuliano L.; Pertile G.; Sindaco D.; De Cilla S.; Muraca A.; Bonfiglio V. M. E.; Vadala M.; La Mantia A.; Randazzo V.; Fiore T.; Tosi G.; Frisina R.; Angeli C.; Coassin M.; Laborante M.; Rossi T.; Cosimi P.; Rizzo S.; Carla M. M.; Gharbiya M.; Albanese G. M.; Caretti L.; Angelini E.; Tosi G. M.; Bacci T.; Steel D. H.; Dervenis N.; Vagiakis I.; Tognetto D.; Pastore M. R.; Faraldi F.; Lavia C. A.; Lanzetta P.; Veritti D.; Rubinato L.; Radice P.; Govetto A. |
| Contributors: | Marolo, P.; Caselgrandi, P.; Fallico, M.; Parisi, G.; Borrelli, E.; Ricardi, F.; Gelormini, F.; Ceroni, L.; Reibaldi, M.; Ferrari, T. M.; Lorusso, M.; Primavera, V.; Giuliani, G.; Mariotti, C.; Lupidi, M.; Ventre, L.; Pintore, G.; Motta, L.; Ripa, M.; Boscia, F.; Boscia, G.; Romano, M. R.; Ferrara, M.; Miroslav, K.; Marchina, D.; Parolini, B.; Peiretti, E.; Marchiori, V.; Dell'Omo, R.; Affatato, M.; Avitabile, T.; Russo, A.; Longo, A.; Scorcia, V.; Carnevali, A.; Mastropasqua, R.; Toto, L.; Vaiano, A. S.; Merli, R.; Mura, M.; Pellegrini, M.; Giansanti, F.; Nicolosi, C.; Badino, M.; Lavorante, N. P.; Sandinha, M. T.; D'Alterio, F. M.; Toro, M. D.; Rejdak, R.; Chelazzi, P.; Azzolini, C.; Viola, F.; Dona, C.; Cereda, M. G.; Casaluci, M.; Codenotti, M.; Iuliano, L.; Pertile, G.; Sindaco, D.; De Cilla, S.; Muraca, A.; Bonfiglio, V. M. E.; Vadala, M.; La Mantia, A.; Randazzo, V.; Fiore, T.; Tosi, G.; Frisina, R.; Angeli, C.; Coassin, M.; Laborante, M.; Rossi, T.; Cosimi, P.; Rizzo, S.; Carla, M. M.; Gharbiya, M.; Albanese, G. M.; Caretti, L.; Angelini, E.; Tosi, G. M.; Bacci, T.; Steel, D. H.; Dervenis, N.; Vagiakis, I.; Tognetto, D.; Pastore, M. R.; Faraldi, F.; Lavia, C. A.; Lanzetta, P.; Veritti, D.; Rubinato, L.; Radice, P.; Govetto, A. |
| Publication Year: | 2025 |
| Collection: | Università degli studi di Trieste: ArTS (Archivio della ricerca di Trieste) |
| Subject Terms: | closure rate; macular hole; no-peeling; optical coherence tomography; peeling; small; visual acuity; vitrectomy; vitreomacular traction |
| Description: | Purpose: To compare vitrectomy with and without internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling in small idiopathic macular holes. Methods: Retrospective multicentre study including consecutive eyes with ≤250 μm idiopathic macular hole treated with vitrectomy. The primary outcome was hole closure rate. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) change, closure patterns on optical coherence tomography, rates of external limiting membrane (ELM) and ellipsoid zone (EZ) recovery, and rate of complications were also investigated. Results: In total, 693 eyes were included. Hole closure rate was 98% in the peeling and 85% in the no-peeling group (p < 0.001). At 12 months, mean BCVA change was 0.38 ± 0.22 logMAR in the peeling and 0.45 ± 0.21 logMAR in the no-peeling group (p = 0.02); 66% versus 80% of eyes had a U-shaped morphology, respectively; EZ recovery rate was 75% and 93%, respectively (p = 0.02). In the no-peeling group, eyes with a vitreomacular traction (VMT) showed a 96% closure rate, comparable to the peeling group (p = 0.40). The incidence of adverse events was similar except for dissociated optic nerve fibre layer (55% in the peeling vs. 9% in the no-peeling group, p < 0.001). Conclusions: In small idiopathic macular holes, ILM peeling provides a higher closure rate compared to no-peeling; however, if a VMT is present closure rates are comparable. In closed macular holes, the no-peeling technique provides advantages in terms of visual outcome and anatomical recovery. |
| Document Type: | article in journal/newspaper |
| File Description: | ELETTRONICO |
| Language: | English |
| Relation: | info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pmid/39400983; info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/wos/WOS:001338245800001; volume:103; issue:3; firstpage:e156; lastpage:e164; numberofpages:9; journal:ACTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA; https://hdl.handle.net/11368/3096461; https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11986401/ |
| DOI: | 10.1111/aos.16778 |
| Availability: | https://hdl.handle.net/11368/3096461; https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.16778; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aos.16778; https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11986401/ |
| Rights: | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess ; license:Creative commons ; license uri:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
| Accession Number: | edsbas.717752EB |
| Database: | BASE |