• Save
Evaluation and Management of Macular Holes
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Evaluation and Management of Macular Holes

on

  • 1,382 views

Evaluation and Management of Macular Holes - Dr James Beatty

Evaluation and Management of Macular Holes - Dr James Beatty

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,382
Views on SlideShare
1,162
Embed Views
220

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

3 Embeds 220

http://www.drjamesbeatty.co.za 189
http://www.personal.co.za 16
http://127.0.0.1 15

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • 20/40 to 20/400, 45% loss of 2 lines, 28% loss of three lines, opposite eye 4.6 to 6.5%
  • (foveal center is weak point due to lack of photoreceptor zonular attachments in this area) Adhearent to the ILM, of muller cell cone.
  • Pathogenisis is realated to traction from the vitreous
  • Oval, no or little ffa changes, minimal va watsky and laser neg Partial thickness with overlying retina intact

Evaluation and Management of Macular Holes Evaluation and Management of Macular Holes Presentation Transcript

  • Evaluation and Management of Macular Holes Focal Points, March 2003
  • Introduction  Idiopathic (most common)  Nonsurgical trauma  Surgical trauma  Pathological myopia  Retinal vascular disease
  • Epidemiology and Natural History  2 x more in F than in M  7th to 8th decade  9% due to trauma  1,9% of visually impaired (BES)  Not associated with medical disease or refractive errors  Full thickness = significant visual loss(EDCCS)  Holes will progress in size and stage (EDCCS)
  • Microscopic Anatomy of the Macula  Macula: 2x ganglion nuclei, ILM  Fovea: no nerve fiber, ganglion cell or inner plexiform layers  Foveola: only cones, Muller cell cone (NB support, vitreous attached)
  • Pathogenesis  Idiopathic: – Contraction of the prefoveolar vitreous cortex – Foveal pseudocyst formation – Dehiscence of pseudocyst and the Muller cell cone leads to full thickness macular hole – +- Contraction of internal limiting membrane  Traumatic: – ? Unknown
  • Classification  Stage 1 (a or b) – Perifoveal PVD – Yellow spot (a) or ring (b) – Contraction > split Muller cell cone – Foveal pseudocyst, not full-thickness – Metamorphopsia, VA 20/40 – > Full thickness hole (30%), partial thickness, stay same, 50% show improvement
  •  Stage 2 – Eccentric or oval full thickness – < 400um – VA 20/50 to 20/80 – 74% progress to stage 3
  •  Stage 3. – >400um. – Foveal oedema + surrounding neuroretinal rim detachment. – Operculum (ILM, muller cell cone, Henles layer and cone nuclei). – VA 20/100 to 20/400.
  •  Stage 4 – Full thickness – Complete vitreous seperation (PVD)
  • Histopathology  Full thickness circular retinal defect at fovea +- an operculum (?Photoreceptors)  100 – 800um  Subretinal fluid, cystoid foveal oedema
  • Presentation and Diagnosis  Central scotoma, metamorphopsia  Amsler grid  VA (20/80 to 20/100)  Contact lens  FFA (transmission defect)  Optical coherence tomography (Gass hypothesis)  Scanning laser ophthalmoscopy  Watzke-Allen  Laser aiming beam test
  • Differential Diagnosis  Pseudo-hole (in epiretinal membrane)  Foveal RPE atrophy  CME  Idiopathic central serous chorioretinopathy  Foveal drusen  RPE detachment  Choroidal neovascularization  Lamellar macular lesions
  • Treatment  PPV/ Delamination of vitreous cortex – Remove tractional forces – Technique using cannula, vitreous cutter
  •  Delamination of the epiretinal membrane – Especially visible ones – Vitrectomy for macular hole study group (80%, 63%) – Seems reasonable
  •  Delamination of the internal limiting membrane – Myofibrocytes and fibrous astrocytes in memb. >Hole patency and enlargement – Indocyanine green (ICG) – Controvercy (trauma, light and ICG toxicity)
  •  Adjuvants  Tamponade of macular hole – Gas or silicone oil – Long acting gas (12-16% C3F8) – Face down positioning (1-2 weeks)/ controversy  Other options (minimal vitrectomy, macular and scleral buckel)
  • Results of Macular Hole Surgery  Stage 1 lesions (foveal cysts) – Nil surgery – Vitrectomy for prevention macular hole study (30% pts with 20/40 vision progress to full thickness, ? role of enzymatic PVD), no clear benefit for vitrectomy
  •  Full-thickness macular holes (stage 2-4) – Elevated or flat / open or closed – Elevated/open – failed – Flat/open – VA <20/50 – Flat /closed – VA >20/30
  • – >VA, >stereopsis, <distortion, <scotoma – Better results with better preop VA, shorter preop duration and more complete ILM peeling – ILM peeling improves VA and eliminates reopening of of holes > than 300um – Current surgery = 90% closure, majority >VA – Also good results without face down positioning – Chronic holes also have an improvement in vision
  •  Reopened or persistent macular holes. – 2nd vitrectomy (83% closure). – Outpatient fluid gas exchange + lazer of foveal RPE 12/13 and 13/15). – Surgical fluid gas exchange (17/23).
  •  Macular holes in high myopes – PPV and gas >lower closure rate – Better results with ILM peeling
  • Complications of Surgery  Retinal detachment (2-11%)  Retinal breaks (5.5%)  Raised IOP (1st week)  RPE (endoillumination /uncommon)  Endophthalmitis (0.1 %)  Late reopening (5 – 9.5%)  Ulnar neuropathy  Cataract
  • Conclusion  Significant cause of loss in central VA.  Becoming more common.  Increased surgical closure rate (58% to 90%).  Decreased complication rate.  VA and visual function improve in the majority of patients.