Five-year follow-up after epiretinal membrane surgery: A single-center experience

Efrat Fleissig*, Dinah Zur, Elad Moisseiev, Shay Keren, Oded Ohana, Adiel Barak

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

17 Scopus citations

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the rate of epiretinal membrane (ERM) recurrence in eyes that underwent ERM peeling surgery at least 5 years earlier. Methods: Retrospective interventional case series study of 37 patients (15 women and 22 men; mean age, 70 ± 7.6 years) operated on for ERM removal with a follow-up of at least 5 years. The patients underwent testing for visual acuity, an ophthalmic examination, and optical coherence tomography imaging, all of which were assessed preoperatively, postoperatively, and at the 5-year follow-up. Results: Visual acuity significantly improved at 1 year after peeling compared with baseline (P = 0.045), and the improved results were maintained at 5 years (P = 0.804) 0.766 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (Snellen 6/35). The central macular thickness decreased significantly at the 1-year follow-up compared with baseline and continued to decrease as measured at the 5-year follow-up (P = 0.04). At 5 years, the ERM recurrence rate reached 58% (28% extrafoveal). Photoreceptor atrophy and retinal pigment epithelium changes correlated with diabetes mellitus (P = 0.028). Conclusion: The recurrence rate of ERM after peeling surgery was reported as being around 5% to 12%. It was 58% in the current study. Because the recurrent ERM is generally mild, visual acuity was unaffected.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1415-1419
Number of pages5
JournalRetina
Volume38
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Jul 2018
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Epiretinal membrane
  • Internal limiting membrane peeling
  • Pars plana vitrectomy
  • Recurrence rate

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Five-year follow-up after epiretinal membrane surgery: A single-center experience'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this