Does internal limiting membrane peeling during epiretinal membrane surgery induce microscotomas on microperimetry? Study protocol for PEELING, a randomized controlled clinical trial

Jean-Baptiste Ducloyer, Juliette Ivan, Alexandra Poinas, Olivier Lebreton, Alexandre Bonissent, Paul Fossum, Christelle Volteau, Ramin Tadayoni, Catherine Creuzot-Garchet, Yannick Le Mer, Julien Perol, June Fortin, Anne Chiffoleau, Fanny Billaud, Catherine Ivan, Michel Weber, Jean-Baptiste Ducloyer, Juliette Ivan, Alexandra Poinas, Olivier Lebreton, Alexandre Bonissent, Paul Fossum, Christelle Volteau, Ramin Tadayoni, Catherine Creuzot-Garchet, Yannick Le Mer, Julien Perol, June Fortin, Anne Chiffoleau, Fanny Billaud, Catherine Ivan, Michel Weber

Abstract

Background: The epiretinal membrane (ERM) is a degenerative condition associated with age, which can cause loss of vision and/or metamorphopsia. The treatment of symptomatic ERM involves surgical removal including a vitrectomy followed by peeling of the ERM using a microforceps. As the internal limiting membrane (ILM) is adherent to the ERM, it is sometimes removed with it (spontaneous peeling). If ILM remains in place, it can be removed to reduce ERM recurrence. However, it is important to clarify the safety of ILM peeling, while it increases surgical risks and cause histological disorganization of the retina that can lead to microscotomas, may be responsible for definitive visual discomfort.

Methods: PEELING is a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blind, and multicentered trial with two parallel arms. This study investigates the benefit/risk ratio of active ILM peeling among individuals undergoing ERM surgery without spontaneous ILM peeling. Randomization is done in the operating room after ERM removal if ILM remains in place. After randomization, the two groups-"active peeling of the ILM" and "no peeling of the ILM"-are compared during a total of three follow-up visits scheduled at month 1, month 6, and month 12. Primary endpoint is the difference in microscotomas before surgery and 6 months after surgery. Patients with spontaneous peeling are not randomized and are included in the ancillary study with the same follow-up visits and the same examinations as the principal study. Relevant inclusion criteria involve individuals aged > 18 years living with idiopathic symptomatic ERM, including pseudophakic patients with transparent posterior capsule or open capsule or lensed patients with age-related cataracts. The calculated sample size corresponds to 53 randomized eyes (one eye/patient) per arm that means 106 randomized eyes (106 randomized patients) in total and a maximum of 222 included patients (116 spontaneous peeling).

Discussion: ILM peeling is often practiced in ERM surgery to reduce ERM recurrence. It does not impair postoperative visual acuity, but it increases the surgical risks and causes anatomical damages. If active ILM peeling is significantly associated with more microscotomas, it may contraindicate the ILM peeling during primitive idiopathic ERM surgery.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02146144. Registered on 22 May 2014. Recruitment is still ongoing.

Keywords: Idiopathic epiretinal membrane; Internal limiting membrane; Microscotomas; Peeling.

Conflict of interest statement

No financial or competing interests from the investigators has to be declared. This study is considered to be externally funded as Professor Dreno has been awarded government funding (via a funding body).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study diagram

References

    1. Kwok AK, Lai TY, Yuen KS. Epiretinal membrane surgery with or without internal limiting membrane peeling. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005;33:379–385. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2005.01015.x.
    1. Fang X, Chen Z, Weng Y, Shu Z, Ni H, Jiang J, et al. Surgical outcome after removal of idiopathic macular epiretinal membrane in young patients. Eye Lond Engl. 2008;22:1430–1435.
    1. Shimada H, Nakashizuka H, Hattori T, Mori R, Mizutani Y, Yuzawa M. Double staining with brilliant blue G and double peeling for epiretinal membranes. Ophthalmology. 2009;116:1370–1376. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.01.024.
    1. Kang KT, Kim KS, Kim YC. Surgical results of idiopathic and secondary epiretinal membrane. Int Ophthalmol. 2014;34:1227–1232. doi: 10.1007/s10792-014-0010-1.
    1. Jung JJ, Hoang QV, Ridley-Lane ML, Sebrow DB, Dhrami-Gavazi E, Chang S. Long-term retrospective analysis of visual acuity and optical coherence topographic changes after single versus double peeling during vitrectomy for macular epiretinal membranes. Retina Phila Pa. 2016;36:2101–2109. doi: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000001055.
    1. Schechet SA, DeVience E, Thompson JT. The effect of internal limiting membrane peeling on idiopathic epiretinal membrane surgery, with a review of the literature. Retina. 2017;37:873–880. doi: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000001263.
    1. Azuma K, Ueta T, Eguchi S, Aihara M. Effects of internal limiting membrane peeling combined with removal of idiopathic epiretinal membrane: a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis. Retina. 2017;37(10):1813–1819. doi: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000001537.
    1. Tranos P, Koukoula S, Charteris DG, Perganda G, Vakalis A, Asteriadis S, et al. The role of internal limiting membrane peeling in epiretinal membrane surgery: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Ophthalmol. 2017;101:719–724. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-309308.
    1. Díaz-Valverde A, Wu L. To peel or not to peel the internal limiting membrane in idiopathic epiretinal membranes. Retina. 2018;38:S5–11. doi: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000001906.
    1. Fang X-L, Tong Y, Zhou Y-L, Zhao P-Q, Wang Z-Y. Internal limiting membrane peeling or not: a systematic review and meta-analysis of idiopathic macular pucker surgery. Br J Ophthalmol. 2017;101(11):1535–41.
    1. De Novelli FJ, Goldbaum M, Monteiro MLR, Bom Aggio F, Takahashi WY. Surgical removal of epiretinal membrane with and without removal of internal limiting membrane: comparative study of visual acuity, features of optical coherence tomography, and recurrence rate. Retina. 2019;39:601–607. doi: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000001983.
    1. Kwok AKH, Leung DYL, Hon C, Lam DSC. Vision threatening vitreous haemorrhage after internal limiting membrane peeling in macular surgeries. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86:1449–1450. doi: 10.1136/bjo.86.12.1449.
    1. Hussain N, Mitra S. Multiple extrafoveal macular holes following internal limiting membrane peeling. Int Med Case Rep J. 2018;11:105–111. doi: 10.2147/IMCRJ.S163780.
    1. Rush RB, Simunovic MP, Aragon AV, Ysasaga JE. Postoperative macular hole formation after vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling for the treatment of epiretinal membrane. Retina Phila Pa. 2014;34:890–896. doi: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000000034.
    1. Nakamura T, Murata T, Hisatomi T, Enaida H, Sassa Y, Ueno A, et al. Ultrastructure of the vitreoretinal interface following the removal of the internal limiting membrane using indocyanine green. Curr Eye Res. 2003;27:395–399. doi: 10.1076/ceyr.27.6.395.18189.
    1. Wolf S, Schnurbusch U, Wiedemann P, Grosche J, Reichenbach A, Wolburg H. Peeling of the basal membrane in the human retina: ultrastructural effects. Ophthalmology. 2004;111:238–243. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2003.05.022.
    1. Clark A, Balducci N, Pichi F, Veronese C, Morara M, Torrazza C, et al. Swelling of the arcuate nerve fiber layer after internal limiting membrane peeling. Retina Phila Pa. 2012;32:1608–1613. doi: 10.1097/IAE.0b013e3182437e86.
    1. Tadayoni R, Paques M, Massin P, Mouki-Benani S, Mikol J, Gaudric A. Dissociated optic nerve fiber layer appearance of the fundus after idiopathic epiretinal membrane removal. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:2279–2283. doi: 10.1016/S0161-6420(01)00856-9.
    1. Runkle AP, Srivastava SK, Yuan A, Kaiser PK, Singh RP, Reese JL, et al. Factors associated with development of dissociated optic nerve fiber layer appearance in the pioneer intraoperative optical coherent tomography study. Retina. 2018;38:S103–S109. doi: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000002017.
    1. Querques G, Forte R, Longo C, Carrillo P, Laculli C, Soubrane G, et al. La micro-périmétrie dans la dégénérescence maculaire liée à l’âge. J Fr Opthalmol. 2008;31(5):515–521. doi: 10.1016/S0181-5512(08)72469-0.
    1. Landa G, Rosen RB, Garcia PMT, Seiple WH. Combined three-dimensional spectral OCT/SLO topography and Microperimetry: steps toward achieving functional spectral OCT/SLO. Ophthalmic Res. 2010;43:92–98. doi: 10.1159/000247593.
    1. Tadayoni R, Svorenova I, Erginay A, Gaudric A, Massin P. Decreased retinal sensitivity after internal limiting membrane peeling for macular hole surgery. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96:1513–1516. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2012-302035.
    1. Deltour J-B, Grimbert P, Masse H, Lebreton O, Weber M. Detrimental effects of active internal limiting membrane peeling during epiretinal membrane surgery: microperimetric analysis. Retina Phila Pa. 2017;37:544–552. doi: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000001179.
    1. Fraser-Bell S, Guzowski M, Rochtchina E, Wang JJ, Mitchell P. Five-year cumulative incidence and progression of epiretinal membranes: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:34–40. doi: 10.1016/S0161-6420(02)01443-4.
    1. Margherio RR, Cox MS, Trese MT, Murphy PL, Johnson J, Minor LA. Removal of epimacular membranes. Ophthalmology. 1985;92:1075–1083. doi: 10.1016/S0161-6420(85)33902-7.
    1. Wong JG, Sachdev N, Beaumont PE, Chang AA. Visual outcomes following vitrectomy and peeling of epiretinal membrane. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005;33:373–378. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2005.01025.x.
    1. Thompson JT. Epiretinal membrane removal in eyes with good visual acuities. Retina Phila Pa. 2005;25:875–882. doi: 10.1097/00006982-200510000-00010.
    1. Hamoudi H, Correll Christensen U, La Cour M. Epiretinal membrane surgery: an analysis of 2-step sequential- or combined phacovitrectomy surgery on refraction and macular anatomy in a prospective trial. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 2018;96:243–250. doi: 10.1111/aos.13572.
    1. Gandorfer A, Haritoglou C, Scheler R, Schumann R, Zhao F, Kampik A. Residual cellular proliferation on the internal limiting membrane in macular pucker surgery. Retina Phila Pa. 2012;32:477–485. doi: 10.1097/IAE.0b013e3182246e2a.
    1. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE): Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication. Haematologica. 2004;89:264.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner