Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34525998›Full record

ArticleBMC ophthalmology2021

Vitrectomy for diabetic macular edema and the relevance of external limiting membrane.

Domagoj Ivastinovic, Anton Haas, Martin Weger, Gerald Seidel, Christoph Mayer-Xanthaki, Ewald Lindner, Andreas Guttmann, Andreas Wedrich

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Domagoj IvastinovicDepartment of Ophthalmology, Medical University Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 4, 8036, Graz, Austria. domagoj.ivastinovic@medunigraz.at.
Anton HaasDepartment of Ophthalmology, Medical University Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 4, 8036, Graz, Austria.
Martin WegerDepartment of Ophthalmology, Medical University Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 4, 8036, Graz, Austria.
Gerald SeidelDepartment of Ophthalmology, Medical University Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 4, 8036, Graz, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2622-2894
Christoph Mayer-XanthakiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Medical University Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 4, 8036, Graz, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6458-0775
Ewald LindnerDepartment of Ophthalmology, Medical University Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 4, 8036, Graz, Austria.
Andreas GuttmannDepartment of Ophthalmology, Medical University Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 4, 8036, Graz, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4062-2288
Andreas WedrichDepartment of Ophthalmology, Medical University Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 4, 8036, Graz, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2533-7067

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the relevance of external limiting membrane (ELM) on the visual and morphological results in eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME) that underwent pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with epiretinal membrane (ERM) and internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling.

methodsMedical records of patients with DME who underwent PPV at our unit between January 2017 and December 2019 were reviewed. We assessed preoperative and postoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT) using spectral domain OCT (optical coherence tomography). Exclusion criteria were previous PPV; incomplete data; concomitant diseases including retinal vein occlusion, age-related macular degeneration, uveitis; and a follow-up of less than 12 months. The surgeries were performed using 23- or 27-gauge vitrectomy. The ELM was graded depending on its configuration (grade 0 = intact, grade 1 to 3: disruption of varying extent).

resultsNinety-nine eyes were enrolled. The postoperative follow up averaged 23.7 months. The preoperative and final BCVA averaged 0.71 ± 0.28 and 0.52 ± 0.3 logMAR, respectively (p = 0.002). The CMT averaged 515.2 ± 209.1 μm preoperatively and 327 ± 66.1 μm postoperatively (p = 0.001). Eyes with intact ELM (n = 8) had a significantly better BCVA compared to those with ELM disruption (0.28 ± 0.14 vs. 0.7 ± 0.25 logMAR, p = 0.01). The final CMT was similar among the groups (intact ELM: 317 ± 54.6 μm; ELM disruption: 334 ± 75.2, p = 0.31).

conclusionsPPV with ERM and ILM peeling is an effective treatment of DME. Eyes with intact ELM preoperatively had a significantly better final visual outcome. To maximize the benefit for patients with DME we recommend early PPV as long as ELM is intact.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusDiabetic RetinopathyEpiretinal MembraneMacular EdemaBasement MembraneHumansInfantRetinaRetrospective StudiesTomography, Optical CoherenceVisual AcuityVitrectomyDiabetic macular edemaEpiretinal membraneExternal limiting membraneInternal limiting membraneVitrectomy

Identifiers

PMID34525998
PMCPMC8444500

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.