Anatomic and Functional Outcomes of Lamellar Macular Hole and Epiretinal Membrane Foveoschisis Surgery: Predictive Factors and Associated Complications — A Retrospective Interventional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Yosra Er-reguyeg,1 Sihame Doukkali,2 Mélanie Hébert,2 Eunice Linh You,2 Serge Bourgault,2 Mathieu Caissie,2 Ãric Tourville,2 Ali Dirani2 1Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada; 2Department of Ophthalmology, Hospital Saint-Sacrement, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, CanadaCorrespondence: Ali Dirani, Hôpital du Saint-Sacrement, 1050 Chemin Sainte-Foy, Québec, QC, D2-44C, Canada, Tel +1 418 525 4444, Email drdirani@gmail.comPurpose: To analyze the anatomic and functional outcomes of lamellar macular hole (LMH) and epiretinal membrane foveoschisis (ERMF) surgery.Patients and Methods: This is a retrospective interventional cohort study of ninety patients with unilateral idiopathic LMH or ERMF who underwent pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with membrane peeling between 2014 and 2021. We evaluated the anatomic and functional success of PPV with membrane peeling for treating LMH and ERMF, compared surgical outcomes between the two entities, and identified predictive factors for anatomical and functional success. Primary outcomes included final postoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and LMH or ERMF closure. Variables associated with final BCVA were assessed using a multiple linear regression model.Results: 51 subjects presented with ERMF, while 39 presented with LMH. LMH or ERMF closure occurred in 80 cases. LMH cases had a lower rate of closure (LMH closure rate: 76.9%, vs ERMF closure rate: 98.0%, p=0.002) and were more at risk of developing a postoperative macular hole (p=0.008). A significant difference was observed between median [Q1, Q3] preoperative BCVA (0.42 [0.26, 0.61] logMAR) and final BCVA (0.31 [0.14, 0.48] logMAR, p=0.024). BCVA varied from 0.52 [0.40, 0.74] logMAR preoperatively to 0.36 [0.30, 0.66] logMAR postoperatively in the LMH subgroup (p=0.060), and from 0.32 [0.20, 0.54] logMAR preoperatively to 0.22 [0.10, 0.40] logMAR postoperatively in the ERMF subgroup (p=0.146). LMH without epiretinal proliferation (β=0.194, p=0.040) was associated with worse final BCVA in multivariate analysis.Conclusion: Results support the effectiveness of PPV as a treatment for LMH. LMHs had worse anatomic outcomes than ERMFs.Keywords: epiretinal membrane foveoschisis, pars plana vitrectomy, epiretinal proliferation peeling, internal limiting membrane peeling, vitreoretinal surgery, retina
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".