Pathogenesis and management of macular holes with video demonstration.pptx
The document provides a comprehensive overview of macular holes including their classification, epidemiology, pathogenesis, and management strategies. It emphasizes the varying treatment options based on the stage of the macular hole and discusses the importance of timely surgical intervention for better visual outcomes. Current trends in management, including advances in surgical techniques and considerations for patient positioning, are also highlighted.
Introduction to the presentation by Dr. Avuru. Outline includes epidemiology, pathogenesis, classification, management, and trends in macular hole (MH) surgeries.
Defines macular hole and its significance. Discusses full-thickness macular holes and historical notes on diagnosis starting from 1869.
Presents the peak incidence of idiopathic macular holes (IMH) in various demographics: USA (3.3/1000), India (0.17%), and Nigeria (4%-18%).
Outlines mechanisms leading to macular holes, including vitreous shrinkage, adhesions, and trauma impacts.
Describes the stages of macular holes (1-4) based on foveal detachment and break size, impacting treatment considerations.
Differentiates between vitreomacular adhesion (VMA) and traction (VMT), discussing the implications for hole development.
Analyses features of full-thickness macular holes, including size classification, causal factors, and VMT presence.
Discusses patient history, examination techniques, and several imaging modalities like OCT and B-scan used in diagnosing macular holes.
Details the management approaches for macular holes, including medical and surgical interventions, particularly pars plana vitrectomy.
Examines contemporary trends in postoperative care regarding face-down positioning, visual outcomes, and surgical risks.
Summarizes the significance of timely intervention for macular holes with references for further reading and thanks.
ï§ INTRODUCTION
ï§ EPIDEMIOLOGY
ï§PATHOGENESIS
ï§ CLASSIFICATION
ï§ MANAGEMENT
ï§ HISTORY
ï§ PHYSICAL EXAMINATION
ï§ INVESTIGATION
ï§ TREATMENT AND CURRENT TREND IN MH SURGERIES
ï§ CONCLUSION
ï§ REFERENCES
3.
ï§ A macularhole is a break in the macular
commonly involving the fovea.
ï§ Full thickness macular hole: Internal
limiting membrane (ILM) to the outer
segment of the photoreceptor layer.
ï§ First described by knapp in 1869
ï§ Case series as at 1970s reported
predominant causes
5.
ï§ Peak incidenceof IDM is in the
seventh decade of life,
ï§ Sex
ï§ Prevalence
ï§ 3.3 cases in 1000 in those 55 years
and above in USA
ï§ 0.17% with a mean age of 67 years
India
ï§ 1.6 out of 1000 elderly Chinese
ï§ 4% of retinal diseases in Benin city,
Nigeria
ï§ 6.6% in South-South Nigeria
ï§ 4.2% - 18% of retinal diseases in
Southwestern Nigeria
ï§ In Ekiti, Ajayi et tal reported MH as
0.5% (new eye cases) and 6.9% of
new cases with retinal diseases,
ï§ In Ibadan, Oluleye et al reported
MH as 14.9% of all macular
diseases seen in UCH(2015- 2019)
6.
ï§ Shrinkage ofprefoveal cortical
vitreous
ï§ persistent adherence of vitreous to the
foveal
ï§ VR Traction :Tangential traction and
anterior posterior vitreoretinal traction
7.
ï§ Trauma-related MH:transmission of
contusion force in a contrecoup
manner on the macular.
ï§ Decreased globeâs anterio-posterior
diameter and equatorial expansion
ï§ Immediate rupture of the macula at its
thinnest point.
8.
CLASSIFICATION MACULAR HOLE
CLASSIFICATION-GASS
ï§ Stage 1(impending Macular hole):
ï§ loss of the foveal depression(increased
clinical prominence of xanthophyll
pigment)
ï§ Stage 1A: Foveolar detachment with
loss of the foveal contour and a
lipofuscin-colored spot)
ï§ Stage 1B: foveal detachment
(lipofuscin-colored ring)
9.
ï§ Stage 2:Full thickness break < 400”m in size
ï§ posterior hyaloid still attached to the fovea
ï§ Stage 3: Full thickness break â„400 ”m in size.
ï§ A grayish macular rim.
ï§ Posterior hyaloid is detached over the fovea
ï§ With or without an overlying operculum.
ï§ Posterior hyaloid remains attached to the optic disc
10.
CLASSIFICATION CONTD
âą Stage4: Full thickness break â„400
”m in size.
âą A grayish macular rim.
âą Complete posterior vitreous
detachment and Weiss ring.
11.
ï§ Vitreomacular adhesion(VMA):
ï§ No distortion of the foveal contour
ï§ Size of attachment area
ï§ Focal if </= 1500 microns
ï§ Broad if >1500 microns
12.
ï§ Vitreomacular traction(VMT):
ï§ Distortion of foveal contour present
or intraretinal structural changes
ï§ size of attachment area
ï§ focal if </= 1500 microns and
ï§ broad if >1500 microns
13.
ï§ Full-thickness macularhole (FTMH)
ï§ Size -- horizontal diameter at narrowest
point:
ï§ small (†250 ÎŒm),
ï§ medium (250-400 ÎŒm),
ï§ large (> 400 ÎŒm); 2)
ï§ Cause -- primary or secondary;
ï§ Presence or absence of VMT
ï§ Age
ï§ Sex
ï§Onset and duration of symptoms
ï§ Blurring
ï§ Straight lines bent or wavy
ï§ Trouble reading small print or
driving
ï§ Dark spot
ï§ A break/discontinuity in calibre
16.
ï§ Myopia
ï§ Trauma
ï§Ocular inflammation
ï§ Ocular surgeries
ï§ MH in the other eye or Family
ï§ Previous Hysterectomy
ï§ Systemic diseases
ï§ Treatment sofar
17.
ï§ Visual acuity:Reported to vary
with stages.
ï§ VITAL SIGNS
ï§ LID
ï§ ANTERIOR SEGMENT
ï§ VITREOUS
ï§ FUNDUSâŠâŠ.direct and indirect
ophthalmoscope
ï§ GRADING OF MACULAR HOLE
18.
EXAMINATION:
BIOMICROSCOPIC (SLIT LAMP
+78D/+90D)
ï§ A round excavation with well-defined
borders interrupting the beam of the slit
lamp
ï§ An overlying semitranslucent tissue,
representing the pseudo-operculum, may
be seen suspended over the hole.
ï§ Surrounding cuff of subretinal fluid
ï§ Yellow-white deposits at the base,
19.
ï§ Amsler gridtest:Not specific for macular
hole ï§ Watzke-Allen TEST: Performed
on the slit lamp
20.
LASER AIMING BEAMTEST
ï§ Performed at the slit lamp
ï§ A small 50-”m spot size used
ï§ Positive test when the patient fails
to detect
21.
MICROPERIMETRY
ï§ Can bedone by using Goldmann
III stimuli (10 cd/m2 luminance)
randomly presented for a duration
of 200 milliseconds on a
1.27 cd/m2 background.
ï§ Central 10° from fixation
accessed.
22.
ï§ Laboratory testsare not indicated
for diagnosis; Determine general
well being of patient and
optimization for surgery.
ï§ FBC
ï§ FBS
ï§ E/U/CR
ï§ Ocular imaging and
electrophysical tests
ï§ OCT
ï§ FFA
ï§ FAF
ï§ B-SCAN
ï§ Multifocal electroretinography
MULTIFOCAL
ELECTRORETINOGRAPHY
ï§ Provides atopographic map of
electrophysiological activity in the central
retina.
ï§ mfERG responses show lower amplitudes in the
fovea in macular hole
ï§ Shows loss of retinal function corresponding to
the macular hole.
ï§ Intravitreal ocriplasmin0.125mg in
0.1ml
ï§ MIVI-TRUST clinical trials was a
double-blind study, 652 eyes with
vitreomacular adhesion were
evaluated
ï§ 58.3% closure rate for holes of less
than 250 ”m diameter
31.
ï§Removal of vitreous
traction
ï§Removalof scaffold for
myofibroblast, fibrocytes,
RPE proliferation
ï§Intraocular tamponade
ï§Head positioning
ï§In 1991, Kelly and Wendel
ï§ Pars plana vitrectomy
ï§ Epiretinal membrane removal
ï§ Internal limiting membrane (ILM)
peeling
ï§ Gas endotamponade
ï§ Prone posturing postoperatively
32.
ï§ Standard 3-port(light source, vitreous
cutter, irrigation/drainage) pars plana
vitrectomy systems (ie, 27 gauge, 25
gauge, 23 gauge)
ï§ Non-contact lens e.g Zeiss RESIGHT,
Oculus BIOM
ï§ Contact lens e.g DORC flat vitrectomy
lens
ï§ The anterior and middle vitreous is
removed
33.
ï§ Removal ofthe perimacular traction exerted by
the posterior hyaloid on the macula
ï§ Use soft-tipped silicon cannula or the vitrectomy
cutter with the cutter disengaged.
REMOVAL
OF INTERNAL LIMITINGMEMBRANE
(ILM) AND INVERTED ILM FLAP
ï§ Removal by pinch and peel technique
ï§ Vital dyes /Stains for ILM
36.
SURGICAL TREATMENT:
AUTOLOGOUS
TRANSPLANTATION OFILM
ï§ Involves ILM peeled off to make a free flap
ï§ Transplanted and placed inside the macular hole
ï§ Failure of standard ILM peeling
ï§ Eyes with myopic foveoschisis
ï§ Trauma.
ï§ Airâfluid exchange performed.
37.
AIR-FLUID
EXCHANGE (INTERNAL TAMPONADE-AIR,
GAS,SILICON OIL)
ï§ Silicone oil vs Intravitreal gas vs
Air tamponade
ï§ Duration of tamponade
ï§ Toxicity
ï§ Number of surgeries
ï§ Anatomic and Visual outcome
38.
ï§ If visualacuity is good and stable, observe most lamellar holes- no surgery
(Theodossiadis et al)
ï§ If visual acuity worsens, surgical intervention is indicated
ï§ Pars plana vitrectomy, ERM peeling, and ILM peeling without intraocular
tamponade may be enough ( Michalewska et al)
39.
ADJUNCTIVE
ï§ AUTOLOGOUS SERUM;Instilled over the macular hole following an airâfluid
exchange to enhance anatomic success.
ï§ Helps to remove ICG dye used in surgery
ï§ Reduces ICG toxicity
ï§ Amniotic membrane graft
ï§ Autologous platelet concentrate
ï§ Transforming growth factor beta 2
ï§ Manipulation of the edges of the macular hole using Tano diamond membrane
scrapper or other instrument to mobilize the edge of the holes towards closure
40.
REMOVAL OF INTERNAL
LIMITINGMEMBRANE
(ILM) CONTD
ï§ The Manchester Large Macular Hole Study showed that the standard ILM peeling was
very effective for macular holes up to 650 microns.
ï§ The closure rate of 90% for holes smaller than 650 microns
ï§ 76% closure rate for holes larger than 650 microns.
ï§ Rizzo et al demonstrated a significant difference in hole closure rates for patients with
axial eye lengths of more than 26mm (39% with ILM peeling vs 88% with ILM flap)
ï§ Rizzo et al also showed that macular holes of more than 400 microns closure rate (79%
with ILM peeling vs 96% with ILM flap).
ï§ CONSIDERATIONS: Dyes retinotoxicity, structural integrity, b-wave recovery
41.
CURRENT TREND: FACE-
DOWNPOSITIONING
ï§ Historically, strict face-down
positioning:recommended for patients for up
to 4 weeks
ï§ Further study advocated shorter periods of
face-down positioning such as 1 day
ï§ The advent of ILM peeling has encouraged
minimal to no face-down
ï§ Tranos et al showed more rapid progression
of cataract formation with less face-down
positioning
ï§ Alberti and Ia Cour compared face-
down positioning with nonsupine
positioning
ï§ found equivalent macular hole closure
rates and noninferiority of nonsupine
positioning
ï§ Hu et al, reported no difference with
positioning for MH < 400 microns.
42.
ï§ Preoperative visualacuity: most important
ï§ Closure rates higher with shorter duration of symptoms: Jaycock et al, Thompson et
al
ï§ Macular hole size
ï§ ILM peeling
ï§ Age of patient
43.
ï§ Retinal detachments:2-
14%(development of iatrogenic retinal
breaks following induction of a
posterior vitreous detachment)
ï§ Iatrogenic retinal tears
ï§ Enlargement of the hole
ï§ Macular light toxicity
ï§ Postoperative IOP elevation
ï§ Cataractogenesis.
ï§ Visual field defects
ï§ Failure of hole closure/hole
reopening
44.
ï§ Macular holeis one of the retinal problems that causes loss of central vision
ï§ Early presentation and appropriate intervention will guarantee a better
outcome.
ï§ Adequate counselling of patients preoperatively that anatomical closure
success rate does not amount to visual success rate is necessary.
45.
ï§ Kanski J.Clinical Ophthalmology: A Systematic Approach. Nineth Ed. Elsevier Health
Sciences; 2020.macular hole. p. 592-7.
ï§ Channa R, Adrienne W. Managing Macular Holes-Common questions associated
with this anomaly are addressed. Retina Today. Jan 2016. [Accessed October 31,
2023]. Available from https://retinatoday.com/articles/2016-jan-feb/managing-
macular-holes
ï§ Kean Theng Oh, Macular Hole Treatment & Management: Medscape.Updated: Jan 02,
2020
ï§ Omesh P. Gupta etâal, Macular Hole. Eyewiki:Updatedby Christina Y. Weng, MD, MBA
on August 7, 2021. https://eyewiki.aao.org/Macular_Hole#Figure2
ï§ Macular holes. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(7):606â615.
ï§ Idiopathic Macular Holes, American Academy of ophthalmology: Retna and vitreous,
2016-2017BCSC