Macular holes are a spectrum of retinal diseases that comprehends full-thickness macular holes (FTMHs), refractory/recurrent macular holes, lamellar macular holes (LMHs), myopic macular holes (MMHs), traumatic macular holes, and macular holes secondary to other retinal pathologies or injuries. There are various classifications of the subtypes of macular hole, and only in recent times researchers defined a common nomenclature, especially thanks to the evolution in retinal imaging, offered by new instruments like the swept-source OCT. The proposed therapies for macular holes are different and range from a “wait-and-see” approach to the vitrectomy, with different results in each subtype of macular hole. This narrative review has the purpose to investigate the available evidence in literature to give a summary of the knowledge about these retinal pathologies.

/pdf/macular-holes-main-clinical-presentations-diagnosis-and-qa4xrqe8.pdf

Macular Holes: Main Clinical Presentations, Diagnosis, and Therapies

Objectives
This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To assess the effect of surgical interventions on postoperative visual and anatomical outcomes in people with a confirmed degenerative lamellar macular hole.

Surgical interventions for degenerative lamellar macular holes

Background Lamellar macular holes (LMHs) are small, partial-thickness defects of the macula defined by characteristic features on optical coherence tomography (OCT), including a newly recognised type of epiretinal membrane termed 'epiretinal proliferation'. There may be a rationale to recommend surgery for individuals with LMHs, particularly those with functional or anatomical deterioration, or poor baseline vision causing significant disability, to stabilise the LMH and prevent further visual deterioration; however, there is currently no evidence-based consensus. Objectives To assess the effect of surgical interventions on post-operative visual and anatomical outcomes in people with a confirmed LMH. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Scopus SciVerse, ISRCTN registry, US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We also searched reference lists of included trials to identify other eligible trials which our search strategy may have missed. The date of the search was 20 July 2021. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving participants with a confirmed LMH diagnosis which reported one or more surgical intervention(s), alone or in combination, in at least one arm of the RCT. Data collection and analysis We used standard methods as expected by Cochrane. Two study authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias for included trials. Trial authors were contacted for further information and clarification. Main results A single RCT was eligible for inclusion. Thirty-six participants were randomised in a 2:1 ratio; 24 were allocated to undergo surgery (pars plana vitrectomy, peeling of the epiretial proliferation followed by fovea-sparing removal of the internal limiting membrane) and 12 (10 following two participant dropouts) to observation. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was low for all outcomes due to selection and detection bias, and the low number of participants enrolled in the study which may affect the accuracy of results and reliability of conclusions. At six-month follow-up, change in vision was better in the surgery group (-0.27 logMAR improvement) than observation (0.02 worsening) (mean difference (MD): -0.29 logMAR, 95% confidence intervals (CI): -0.33 to -0.25). Central retinal thickness increased in the surgery group over 6 months 126 μm increase) compared with observation group (decrease by 11μm) (MD: 137 μm, 95% CI: 125.87 μm to 148.13 μm). Finally, at six-month follow-up, retinal sensitivity was better in the surgery group (3.03 dB increase) compared with the observation group (0.06 dB decrease) (MD: 3.09 dB, 95% CI: 2.07 to 4.11 dB). Vision-related quality of life and metamorphopsia were not reported. No adverse outcomes or complications were reported in the study, however, authors could not provide information on whether any individuals developed deterioration in vision of 0.2 logMAR or worse. Authors' conclusions The included single trial demonstrated improvements in visual and anatomical outcome measures for participants with a LMH who underwent surgery compared with observation only. Therefore, we can conclude that participants who undergo surgery may achieve superior post-operative best corrected visual acuity and anatomical outcomes compared with observation only. However, the results of a single and small RCT provides limited evidence to support or refute surgery as an effective management option for LMHs. Future RCTs with a larger number of participants and with fewer methodological limitations and biases are necessary to inform future clinical practice.

Surgical interventions for lamellar macular holes.

Introduction. The aim of our observational cross-sectional study was to evaluate the association between visual function and anatomical characteristics of LMH, considering in particular different subtypes of LMH and their features. Materials and Methods. This observational clinical study has been conducted in the Ophthalmology Clinic, ASST-Sette Laghi, University of Insubria of Varese-Como, Italy. Included patients underwent a complete ophthalmological examination, as well as MP1 microperimetry evaluation and optical coherence tomography (OCT). Two experienced masked observers evaluated OCT imaging in order to assess the integrity of the photoreceptor layer (interdigitation zone and ellipsoid zone: IZ/EZ) and the external limiting membrane (ELM). Results. Twenty-five patients affected by an LMH were evaluated. Eighteen eyes of 18 patients met the study criteria and were included. Based on morphological and functional data, LMHs were divided into two subgroups: tractional (tLMH) and degenerative (dLMH). We identified 11 tLMHs and seven dLMHs. Functional parameters showed a significative difference in visual acuity and retinal sensitivity between the two groups, respectively: (sample median and the interquartile range) 0.0 (0.0; 0.09) LogMAR vs 0.15 (0.09; 0.52) LogMAR and 16.2 (14.2; 17.7) dB vs 10.0 (7.5; 11.8) dB ( ). Fixation was predominantly central in 90.9% of tLMH vs 71.4% of dLMH and stable in 81.8% tLMH vs 42.9% dLMH, but the differences were not statistically significant. Tractional and degenerative LMHs showed no significant differences in central foveal thickness. Conversely, LMH depth and horizontal diameters appeared different between the two groups. Tractional LMH showed a greater depth 257 (205; 278) μm vs 190 (169; 249) μm, whereas degenerative LMH showed a greater horizontal diameter 653 (455; 750) μm vs 429 (314; 620) μm ( ). IZ/EZ line was unaffected in 81.8% of tLMHs eyes versus 14.3% of dLMHs eyes ( ). Visual acuity and retinal sensitivity were higher in eyes with integrity of both IZ/EZ and ELM compared to those with a disruption of one or both layers ( ). Conclusion. Two different subtypes of LMH showed peculiar functional aspects due to their morphological features. Tractional LMHs revealed higher visual acuity and retinal sensibility due to the relative preservation of the outer retinal layers compared to degenerative LMHs. Moreover, we underlined the importance of microperimetry to better identify functional defects in macular degenerative pathologies.

/pdf/lamellar-macular-holes-the-role-of-microperimetry-in-nzeky9uz2n.pdf

Paola Della Valle

Papers

Lamellar Macular Holes: The Role of Microperimetry in Functional Assessment.