水口 忠

PURPOSE: To investigate the efficacy of modified internal limiting membrane (ILM) flap technique combined with vitreous surgery for treating macular holes and examine the outcomes in visual function and anatomic macular hole closure. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective, observational. METHODS: Between July 1, 2015, and October 1, 2019, the modified inverted ILM flap technique combined with vitreous surgery was used to treat idiopathic macular holes, postoperative progression was then followed for at least 6 months in 96 participants (98 eyes). We modified the method by removing the lower half of the ILM while peeling and inverting the upper half. The mean age of the participants was 65.9 ± 11.9 years (41 men (42.7%) and 55 women (57.3%)). Retrospective evaluations of macular hole diameter, corrected visual acuity, and macular hole closure rates were performed using data from medical records. RESULTS: The mean macular hole diameter was 623.6 ± 207.4 μm. The mean corrected visual acuity (logMAR) was 0.79 ± 0.27 before surgery and 0.46 ± 0.35 at 1, 0.35 ± 0.39 at 3, and 0.31 ± 0.36 at 6 months Post surgery, showing significant differences before and after surgery (p = 2.30 × 10- 2). The macular hole closure rate was 98%. CONCLUSION: The modified inverted ILM flap technique combined with vitreous surgery was an effective method for treating macular holes, resulting in improvement in closure and visual acuity.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine the incidence of, and risk factors for, epiretinal membrane (ERM) surgery after an initial pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD). METHODS: The records of consecutive patients (3,495 eyes of 3,387 patients) who underwent RRD repair at Fujita Health University Hospital between January 1, 2008, and February 28, 2019, were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 1,736 eyes without an ERM in preoperative optical coherence tomography were included in this study. RESULTS: The incidence of ERM surgery after RRD repair was 2.4%. The mean time from RRD repair to ERM surgery was 19.5±27.2 months. The odds ratios after adjusting for age and sex were as follows: the preoperative visual acuity (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution, logMAR), 2.17 (p=0.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-5.16); axial length, 1.38 (p=0.002; 95% CI, 1.12-1.72); 20-gauge vitreous surgery instruments, 3.82 (p<0.0001; 95% CI, 2.02-7.16); internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling, 0.28 (p=0.033; 95% CI, 0.05-0.92). ERM surgery improved visual acuity from 0.36 to 0.01 logMAR, even at ≥1.5 years after RRD repair. CONCLUSIONS: Careful follow-up is required in the following cases: long axial length before RRD repair, low visual acuity, use of 20-gauge vitreous surgery instruments, and a lack of ILM peeling.

<sec><title>Introduction</title> The ability to reduce illumination levels is generally accepted as one of the main benefits of a three-dimensional heads-up system (3D system: Ngenuity®; Alcon, CA, USA). Some studies have focused on illumination reduction in vitreoretinal procedures; however, information regarding illumination reduction in cataract surgery has not been published. </sec><sec><title>Purpose</title> This study aimed to compare the illumination of the operational field with a 3D system and a standard microscope eyepiece during cataract surgery. </sec><sec><title>Subject and methods</title> We retrospectively evaluated 91 eyes of 84 consecutive patients who were undergoing cataract surgery at our hospital. We used the 3D system and the eyepiece on alternative days. We determined the minimum light intensity required for safe surgery using the foot switch of the microscope (OMS800; Topcon, Tokyo, Japan). Illuminance on the ocular surface and the minimum illuminance required for the operation were calculated from the minimum light intensity. </sec><sec><title>Results</title> The 3D system was used in 45 eyes (3D group), and the eyepiece was used in 46 eyes (eyepiece group). The values of minimum illuminance in the 3D group were significantly lower than those in the eyepiece group (3D: 5500 ± 2000 lux, eyepiece: 11,900 ± 1800 lux; p &lt; 0.001*). In addition, the illuminance of the operational field was reduced by 60.4% on average using the 3D system. </sec><sec><title>Conclusion</title> With real-time digital processing and automated brightness control, the 3D system reduced ocular surface illumination by 50% or more. Hence, the 3D system may contribute to reducing the risk of retinal phototoxicity and patient photophobia. </sec>