Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

With or without internal limiting membrane peeling during idiopathic epiretinal membrane surgery: A meta-analysis

  • Qinying Huang,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Writing – original draft

    Affiliations Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, Guangdong, China, Department of Ophthalmology, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China

    ⨯
  • Jinying Li

    Roles Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    ljy951019@163.com

    Affiliation Department of Ophthalmology, Peking University Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China

    ⨯

Abstract

Background

Although previously published meta-analyses have compared the surgical effects between the methods of Idiopathic epiretinal membrane (iERM) removal with or without ILM peeling, they did not reach an agreement.

Purpose

We aimed to provide more evidence for the treatment of iERM and whether additional ILM peeling was better or not by analyzing more updated studies and randomized control trials (RCTs).

Method

The search was conducted in Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Open Grey without language limitation and the studies included were from inception to December 2019. All studies of iERM with or without ILM peeling showed at least one of outcomes, such as best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT) and recurrence of ERM. The pooled results between above groups were showed by the mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Result

In total, 1645 eyes of five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and fifteen retrospective studies were included. The short-term (<12 months) BCVA improvement in both groups showed no significant difference (MD = -0.01; 95% CI = -0.02 to 0.01; P = 0.36). However, the BCVA improvement was significantly better in ILM peeling eyes than in those without ILM peeling when considering the risk bias (MD = -0.04; 95% CI = -0.07 to -0.01; P = 0.008). The short-term (<12 months) CMT had a higher reduction in non ILM peeling group (MD = -9.02; 95% CI = -12.51 to -5.54; P < 0.00001) and the recurrence of ERM in ILM peeling group was lower (P < 0.00001). The long-term (≥12months) BCVA improvement ((MD = -0.00; 95% CI = -0.03 to 0.03; P = 0.97) and reduction of long-term (≥12months) CMT (MD = -1.14; 95% CI = -7.14 to -4.86; P = 0.71) were similar in both groups.

Conclusion

By considering the risk of bias, we should determine whether ILM peeling is beneficial for short-term changes in BCVA in patients with iERM. Nevertheless, further studies are needed to confirm this. iERM removal without ILM peeling can improve the short-term decrease in CMT and ILM peeling decreases the recurrence of ERM, but the long-term changes in BCVA and CMT are similar with or without ILM peeling. There is a need for a true large scale randomized trial that will also include microperimetry and other functional measures.

Citation: Huang Q, Li J (2021) With or without internal limiting membrane peeling during idiopathic epiretinal membrane surgery: A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 16(1): e0245459. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245459

Editor: Demetrios G. Vavvas, Massachusetts Eye & Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, UNITED STATES

Received: March 11, 2020; Accepted: January 1, 2021; Published: January 19, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Huang, Li. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

1. Background

Idiopathic epiretinal membrane (iERM), a sheet of fibrotic tissue found at the vitreoretinal interface, is a common disease mainly associated with aging and posterior vitreous detachment. This is mostly due to the proliferation of retinal elements, including different types of cells and proteins. The major cellular components of iERM are retinal glial cells, which are derived from Müller cells [1–3]. The prevalence of iERM is 2% in individuals under 60 years of age and 12%~20% in those over 70 years of age [4]. Patients with iERM may have no symptoms in the early stage, but they often complain of a reduction in visual acuity and distorted or blurred central vision when the macular structure is destroyed. However, its diagnosis is based on exclusion, which requires ruling out secondary causes, such as an operated retinal detachment or vascular or inflammatory retinopathies. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a useful method for discovering microscopic retinal changes and has been applied extensively to assist in the diagnosis of iERM [5].

Pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) and ERM removal are considered standard surgical interventions to treat symptomatic patients [6], and most patients have an improved visual outcome after surgery. Unfortunately, ERM recurs in approximately 10%~21% of patients, and 3% of patients with recurrence require reoperation [7, 8]. As the basal lamina of Müller cells, the internal limiting membrane (ILM) plays an important role in the recurrence of ERM. A previous study proposed that removing the ILM during iERM surgery can prevent the recurrence of ERM [7]. The use of indocyanine green (ICG) and brilliant blue G (BBG), seem to have improved the safety of ILM peeling, which is now being gradually accepted as a treatment modality [9]. However, surgery with ILM peeling may have a prognosis similar to that without ILM peeling. Moreover, the process of ILM peeling may damage the function of Müller cells and induce visual function deterioration, macular edema, or retinal hemorrhage.

Although previously published meta-analyses have compared the surgical effects between the methods of iERM removal with or without ILM peeling, they did not include enough randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and did not have consistent conclusions regarding postoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) [10, 11]. Although the controversy surrounding the surgical methods has been previously discussed, we included more studies on iERM to provide more reliable evidence.

2. Objectives

The main outcomes were short-term (<12 months) and long-term (≥12 months) BCVA improvements. The postoperative logarithm of minimum angle resolution (logMAR) at specific point minus the preoperative logMAR is defined as BCVA improvement. The secondary outcomes were short-term (<12 months) and long-term (≥12 months) CMT reduction and recurrence of ERM. CMT reduction means that the distance between the vitreous retinal interface and the inner border of the retinal pigment epithelium decreases. Recurrence of ERM is defined as either biomicroscopic or OCT evidence of recurrent macular pucker. We aimed to determine whether ERM removal with or without ILM peeling was more beneficial for iERM treatment.

3. Search methods

3.1 Literature search strategy

The terms used for searching were (A) “Epiretinal membrane [Mesh]”, (B) “Epiretinal membrane [Title and Abstract]”, (C) “Epiretinal membranes [Title and Abstract]”, (D) “Membrane, epiretinal [Title and Abstract]”, (E) “Membranes, epiretinal [Title and Abstract]”, (F) “Epimacular membrane [Title and Abstract]”, (G) “Macular pucker [Title and Abstract]”, (H) “Internal limiting membrane [Title and Abstract]”, and (I) “Inner limiting membrane [Title and Abstract]”. The search was conducted using “A or B or C or D or E or F or G” and “H or I” in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Open Grey databases. No language restrictions were imposed, and the studies included were from database inception to December 2019.

3.2 Criteria for inclusion and exclusion

All RCTs or retrospective studies on iERM, with or without ILM peeling, were included. The foveal-sparing ILM was considered the type without ILM peeling. In addition, at least one of the outcomes, such as BCVA, CMT, and recurrence of ERM, had to be reported in each study. Moreover, after intervention, the research subjects should have been followed up for at least 6 months. The exclusion criteria were as follows: non-availability of the abstract or full text; conference abstracts or papers; low-quality investigations; studies without complete data that would affect the results; and choosing the most comprehensive, longest observation from the republished research.

3.3 Data extraction

Two members of our team independently oversaw data extraction from all the included studies. In cases of disagreement, they would first discuss and try to reach a consensus; otherwise, they sought help from another more experienced researcher. The basic information collected included the first author’s name, publication date, and journal name. The study design, number and age of patients, and length of follow-up were also collected. Importantly, data on the outcomes of interest, such as BCVA, CMT, and recurrence of ERM, were extracted.

3.4 Quality and risk bias assessment

The quality of retrospective trials was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale [12]. All scores of the retrospective studies were greater than 6 points separately. The RCTs were evaluated according to the Cochrane Collaboration tools [13]. We assessed the risk of bias according to the following principles: generation and concealment of the allocation sequence; blinding; attrition and exclusions; other generic sources of bias; biases specific to the trial design or specific to a clinical specialty. All included studies met the requirement for a meta-analysis.

3.5 Statistical analysis

We performed statistical analyses using the Review Manager 5.3 software. As for the final results, we compared five outcomes with or without ILM peeling, including short-term and long-term BCVA, short-term and long-term CMT, and recurrence rate of ERM. Data from the latest follow-up, before 12 months, were considered the short-term outcomes. The long-term outcomes were considered after 12 months and up to the end of the study. BCVA and CMT were continuous variables. We compared the mean differences (MDs) in changes between the groups with or without ILM peeling. As for the recurrence rate, the binary variable, we calculated risk ratios. All outcomes were given with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The chi-squared test was used to determine the heterogeneity between the results of each study, and I2 was used to assess the heterogeneity quantitatively. An I2 value > 50% indicated moderate to high heterogeneity. For studies without statistical heterogeneity, the fixed-effects model was used for the combined analysis. For those with statistical heterogeneity, the random-effects model was applied. Moreover, we used funnel plots to test for possible publication bias and conducted sensitivity or subgroup analysis in order to assess the similarity of the results across subgroups.

4. Results

4.1 Study selection

The electronic searches of the databases initially yielded 2562 articles. Of these, 2509 articles were excluded preliminarily because these studies were reviews or duplicates, animal studies, or unrelated to our specific topic. We further excluded 33 articles from analysis: 10 were conference abstracts or papers, 16 studies were unavailable, 4 were on ERM only or ERM with ILM peeling, 1 had low quality, and 2 had incomplete data. Finally, 20 articles were used in our research, including 15 retrospective studies [6, 7, 14–26] and 5 RCTs [27–31]. The process of study selection is shown in Fig 1. The scores of the retrospective trials assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were greater than 6 points separately [12]. Moreover, the RCTs had a low risk of bias, as evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration tools [13].

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. The process of identifying eligible studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245459.g001

4.2 Characteristics of studies

In total, 1645 eyes from 20 studies in our meta-analysis underwent treatment for iERM. The mean age of most patients was between 60 and 70 years old. The study durations ranged from 6 months to 8 years. The baseline data of preoperative BCVA and CMT are shown in Table 1. The final results of BCVA, CMT, and ERM recurrence are shown in Table 2. The quality of all studies was strictly assessed and unqualified data were excluded.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. The baseline characteristic of included studies (①with ILM peeling ②without ILM peeling).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245459.t001

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Each outcome of included studies (①with ILM peeling ②without ILM peeling; short-term <12months, long-term ≥12months).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245459.t002

4.3 Outcomes

4.3.1 BCVA improvement.

The meta-analysis included 644 eyes from 9 studies on short-term BCVA improvement. No statistically significant differences were observed in heterogeneity between the two groups with or without ILM peeling (P = 0.13; I2 = 36%). BCVA improvement in both groups showed no significant difference (MD = -0.01; 95% CI = -0.02 to 0.01; P = 0.36) (Fig 2A). We conducted a sensitivity analysis restricting the analysis to the retrospective studies and the RCTs separately. In retrospective studies, we found that short term BCVA improvement showed no significant difference when changing the analysis model (fixed model: P = 0.13, I2 = 43%, MD = -0.00, 95% CI = -0.01 to 0.01, P = 0.46; random model: P = 0.13, I2 = 43%, MD = -0.03, 95% CI = -0.07 to 0.01, P = 0.09). In RCTs, we also found that short term BCVA improvement showed no significant difference when changing the analysis model (fixed model: P = 0.17, I2 = 40%, MD = -0.02, 95% CI = -0.07 to 0.03, P = 0.41; random model: P = 0.17, I2 = 40%, MD = -0.03, 95% CI = -0.09 to 0.04, P = 0.40). It reveals that the result of short term BCVA improvement in our meta-analysis is steady and credible. The funnel plot hinted at a potential bias in the results (Fig 3A). Once the article of Lee et al. [24] was excluded, BCVA improvement was significantly better in the eyes with ILM peeling than in those without ILM peeling (MD = -0.04; 95% CI = -0.07 to -0.01; P = 0.008). However, we found that there was not obvious bias when we analyzed the bias including article of Lee et al. with Egger’s regression (P = 0.945 >0.05). Thus, we included the article of Lee et al. in our analysis of short-term BCVA improvement.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2.

Meta-analysis comparing short-term (<12 months) (A) and long-term (≥12 months) (B) BCVA improvement between the groups with and without ILM peeling. BCVA is given as the logMAR.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245459.g002

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 3.

The funnel plot of short-term (<12 months) (A) and long-term (≥12 months) (B) BCVA improvement between the groups with and without ILM peeling.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245459.g003

The heterogeneity in long-term BCVA improvement in 872 eyes from 11 studies with and without ILM peeling was not statistically significant (P = 0.54; I2 = 0%). The fixed-effects model showed no statistical difference in the results of BCVA improvement (MD = -0.00; 95% CI = -0.03 to 0.03; P = 0.97) (Fig 2B). There was also potential bias in the results showed by funnel plot because of a limited number of included studies. (Fig 3B).

4.3.2 CMT reduction.

We compared the short-term decrease in CMT in 535 eyes from 8 studies with and without ILM peeling. The data showed that the decrease in CMT was statistically significant between the studies with and without ILM peeling (MD = -9.02; 95% CI = -12.51 to -5.54; P < 0.00001), with no significant heterogeneity (P = 0.53; I2 = 0%) (Fig 4A). There was potential bias in the results showed by funnel plot because of limited included studies. (Fig 5A).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 4.

Meta-analysis comparing short-term (<12 months) (A) and long-term (≥12 months) (B) CMT reduction between the groups with and without ILM peeling.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245459.g004

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 5.

The funnel plot of short-term (<12 months) (A) and long-term (≥12 months) (B) CMT reduction between the groups with and without ILM peeling.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245459.g005

We also compared the decrease in long-term CMT in 755 eyes from 10 studies. The results showed mild heterogeneity (P = 0.09; I2 = 40%). However, no statistically significant decrease in long-term CMT was observed between the groups with and without ILM peeling (MD = -1.14; 95% CI = -7.14 to -4.86; P = 0.71) (Fig 4B). In the subgroup analysis, the heterogeneity decreased and the significance of the total effect was the same before and after excluding the study by Jung et al. [20] (after exclusion: P = 0.33; I2 = 13%; MD = -0.10; 95% CI = -6.16 to -5.96; P = 0.97). Potential bias could not be ignored because the included studies were limited (Fig 5B).

4.3.3 Recurrence of ERM.

Recurrence of ERM was analyzed in 1471 eyes from 17 studies. Mild heterogeneity was observed between these studies (P = 0.03; I2 = 46%; RR = 0.26; 95% CI = 0.19 to 0.37). This showed that the recurrence of ERM in groups with or without ILM peeling was statistically significant (P < 0.00001) (Fig 6). In the sensitivity analysis, we changed the fixed model to random model and we found that the result did not change obviously (P = 003; I2 = 46%; RR = 0.28; 95% CI = 0.16 to 0.49). Moreover, the recurrence of ERM in groups was also statistically significant (P < 0.00001). It means that the result of recurrence of ERM in our meta-analysis is steady and credible. The funnel plot showed no publication bias (Fig 7). [23] l [25].

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 6. Meta-analysis comparing the recurrence of ERM between the groups with and without ILM peeling.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245459.g006

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 7. The funnel plot of recurrence of ERM between the groups with and without ILM peeling.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245459.g007

5. Discussion

In our meta-analysis, we analyzed BCVA, CMT, and recurrence of ERM in 20 studies. The data which was lacking in standard deviation was excluded in analysis of the above items. As a result, there were some studies that could not be included. Although the risk of bias in RCTs was at a low level totally, there was some unclear and high risk of bias in some studies indeed. The prognosis in terms of short-term BCVA was the same between the groups with and without ILM peeling. After exclusion of an original study [24], the result changed and short-term BCVA was better in the group with ILM peeling than in that without ILM peeling. However, there was not obvious bias when we analyzed the bias including article of Lee et al. with Egger’s regression. Thus, we included the article of Lee et al. in our analysis of short-term BCVA improvement. Short-term CMT in the group without ILM peeling decreased more obviously than it did in the group with ILM peeling, and the recurrence of ERM was lower in the group with ILM peeling than in that without ILM peeling. However, long-term BCVA and long-term CMT improved similarly in the groups with and without ILM peeling.

Another meta-analysis published several years ago did not reach an agreement on the treatment for iERM. Chang [10] analyzed 12 studies involving 756 eyes and found that PPV with ILM peeling had better outcomes in terms of long-term (>18 months) BCVA and lower ERM recurrence rate. The reduction in CMT was more apparent in the group without ILM peeling. Nevertheless, Kumihiro Azuma [11] arrived at another conclusion by analyzing 15 studies involving 1367 eyes. Compared with the absence of ILM peeling, additional ILM peeling did not significantly affect BCVA and CMT after the intervention, but it could reduce the recurrence of ERM. As a result, both methods were used by different surgeons according to their personal experience. We aimed to provide more reliable evidence supporting iERM treatment.

The visual acuity of patients with iERM will reduce when the inner retinal layers contort. Retinal thickening and edema are the main causes of distortion. However, the optimal time of surgical intervention is difficult to determine. On the basis of morphological characteristics evaluated using spectral-domain OCT (SD-OCT), iERM was classified into five groups. The macular function of each group can be demonstrated by applying multifocal electroretinography, which is an objective and noninvasive method that helps detect regional functional changes in the central retina by measuring electrophysiological responses. It can be used to assess the degree of functional decline in the foveal area and provide evidence supporting surgery [32, 33].

Initially, ERM peeling was the major surgical method for symptomatic patients with iERM. However, studies analyzing the histological features of surgical specimens discovered that the ILM was removed spontaneously together with ERM peeling in some cases, and reported that iERM was less likely to have focal points of adhesion to the retina than does secondary ERM [34, 35]. Meanwhile, some patients experienced recurrence of ERM after treatment, and some of them needed further surgery. Incomplete iERM removal is believed to result in the regrowth of myofibroblasts and to lead to the recurrence of ERM [36]. The ILM provides a scaffold for proliferation, and hence the method of iERM treatment with ILM peeling was proposed [15]. However, peeling the ILM is difficult because of its transparent nature. ICG was first used during the process of surgery, and it provided a clear distinction between the stained ILM and unstained retina [37]. Moreover, it could protect the retina from mechanical injury during ILM peeling and increase the surgeons’ confidence in performing the surgery. Later, the safety of ICG was discussed, and it was discovered that its concentration, osmolarity, and time of tissue contact could cause potential damage to the retina [38]. Choi, W. S., et al. [39] also concluded that intravitreal ICG-assisted ILM peeling did not influence the recovery of BCVA but impaired the recovery of CMT. In another study, BBG was considered the state-of-the-art dye for ILM identification and was gradually used to assist in ILM peeling [40]. Recently, intraoperative OCT-guided ERM peeling has demonstrated similar visual outcomes and anatomic improvements without ILM peeling, when compared with the conventional method [41]. Although the methods of ILM peeling have been updated, analysis of risk bias reveals that short-term BCVA does not seem to improve in the groups with or without ILM peeling in our meta-analysis. The result of our meta-analysis also revealed a similar level of improvement in long-term BCVA in both groups. We speculate that iERM is the main factor affecting the macular structure and that BCVA improves after iERM removal.

CMT decreased significantly following iERM removal with or without ILM peeling [42]. Oh, H. N., et al. [17] and Sultan, H., et al. [25] reported that the short-term decrease in CMT was higher in the group with ILM peeling than in that without ILM peeling. On the contrary, most studies revealed a more severe decrease in CMT in the group without ILM peeling. The development of modalities such as SD-OCT improved the evaluation of iERM and have allowed accurate measurement of changes in CMT [43]. The short-term changes in CMT between the two groups may be due to the different levels of decrease in tissue structure; moreover, the degree of reactive edema may influence the results. Ocular reactions can reduce over time, and the long-term changes in CMT subsequently seem similar. In addition, we found that almost all included studies showed a lower recurrence of ERM in the group with ILM peeling. As mentioned previously, ILM peeling not only removes the residual ERM, but also eliminates the scaffold for cell proliferation. It is not controversial that the ILM peeling is beneficial for reduction of ERM recurrence.

Although ILM peeling does not seem to have an adverse effect on BCVA and CMT, it is not totally without side effects. When peeling the ILM, mechanical injury to the retina may still occur. The histological disorganization may also lead to microscotomas and result in visual discomfort or even macular edema. Moreover, the mean retinal sensitivity showed a slow recovery in patients with ILM peeling [27, 44].

Our meta-analysis included more original studies than previous meta-analyses. However, the number of studies analyzing each outcome seems insufficient. Moreover, heterogeneity exists because of the combination of different types of studies. Furthermore, we did not impose strict restrictions on factors such as age, cataract surgery, and follow-up time, and these may have influenced the results. Last but not least, the risk of bias in included studies could not be ignored. The bias, such as selection bias, performance bias, detection bias and so on, might influence the final result of meta-analysis. We suggest that higher-quality RCTs be included in future meta-analyses to obtain more reliable results.

6. Conclusion

By considering the risk of bias, we should determine whether ILM peeling is beneficial for short-term changes in BCVA in patients with iERM. Nevertheless, further studies are needed to confirm this. iERM removal without ILM peeling can improve the short-term decrease in CMT and ILM peeling decreases the recurrence of ERM, but the long-term changes in BCVA and CMT are similar with or without ILM peeling. There is a need for a true large scale randomized trial that will also include microperimetry and other functional measures.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. PRISMA 2009 checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245459.s001

(DOC)

S1 Fig. The funnel plot after having excluded the study of Lee et al. in analysis of short-term BCVA improvement.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245459.s002

(DOCX)

S2 Fig. The result of Egger’s regression test in analysis of short-term BCVA improvement.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245459.s003

(DOC)

S1 Table. The publication is not included because of the unavailable abstract or full text.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245459.s004

(DOCX)

S2 Table. The publication is not included because of incomplete data.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245459.s005

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Risk of bias summary in RCTs.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245459.s006

(DOCX)

S1 Flow diagram. PRISMA 2009 flow diagram.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245459.s007

(DOC)

Acknowledgments

The authors take responsibility for the content in and drafting of the paper. There are no conflicts of interest or sponsors.

References

  1. 1. Tari SR, Vidne-Hay O, Greenstein VC, Barile GR, Hood DC, Chang S. Functional and structural measurements for the assessment of internal limiting membrane peeling in idiopathic macular pucker. Retina (Philadelphia, Pa). 2007;27(5):567–72. pmid:17558317
  2. 2. Kritzenberger M, Junglas B, Framme C, Helbig H, Gabel VP, Fuchshofer R, et al. Different collagen types define two types of idiopathic epiretinal membranes. Histopathology. 2011;58(6):953–65. pmid:21480957
  3. 3. Bringmann A, Wiedemann P. Involvement of Muller glial cells in epiretinal membrane formation. Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie. 2009;247(7):865–83.
  4. 4. Dal Vecchio M, Lavia C, Nassisi M, Grignolo FM, Fea AM. Microperimetric Assessment after Epiretinal Membrane Surgery: 4-Year Follow-Up. Journal of ophthalmology. 2016;2016:7030791. pmid:27088008
  5. 5. Suh MH, Seo JM, Park KH, Yu HG. Associations between macular findings by optical coherence tomography and visual outcomes after epiretinal membrane removal. American journal of ophthalmology. 2009;147(3):473–80.e3. pmid:19054492
  6. 6. Pournaras CJ, Emarah A, Petropoulos IK. Idiopathic macular epiretinal membrane surgery and ILM peeling: anatomical and functional outcomes. Seminars in ophthalmology. 2011;26(2):42–6. pmid:21469962
  7. 7. Park DW, Dugel PU, Garda J, Sipperley JO, Thach A, Sneed SR, et al. Macular pucker removal with and without internal limiting membrane peeling: pilot study. Ophthalmology. 2003;110(1):62–4. pmid:12511347
  8. 8. Sandali O, El Sanharawi M, Basli E, Bonnel S, Lecuen N, Barale PO, et al. Epiretinal membrane recurrence: incidence, characteristics, evolution, and preventive and risk factors. Retina (Philadelphia, Pa). 2013;33(10):2032–8.
  9. 9. Dai F, Jin X, Wan W. Indocyanine green-assisted macular epiretinal membrane combined internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic macular epiretinal membrane. Zhonghua Shiyan Yanke Zazhi/Chinese Journal of Experimental Ophthalmology. 2014;32(3):231–4.
  10. 10. Chang WC, Lin C, Lee CH, Sung TL, Tung TH, Liu JH. Vitrectomy with or without internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic epiretinal membrane: A meta-analysis. PloS one. 2017;12(6):e0179105. pmid:28622372
  11. 11. Azuma K, Ueta T, Eguchi S, Aihara M. Effects of internal limiting membrane peeling combined with removal of idiopathic epiretinal membrane. Retina (Philadelphia, Pa). 2017;37(10):1813–9. pmid:28207608
  12. 12. Lo CK-L, Mertz D, Loeb M. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: comparing reviewers’ to authors’ assessments. Bmc Medical Research Methodology.14(1):45. pmid:24690082
  13. 13. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928. pmid:22008217
  14. 14. Kwok A, Lai TY, Yuen KS. Epiretinal membrane surgery with or without internal limiting membrane peeling. Clinical & experimental ophthalmology. 2005;33(4):379–85.
  15. 15. 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(7):1370–6. pmid:19427701
  16. 16. Lee JW, Kim IT. Outcomes of idiopathic macular epiretinal membrane removal with and without internal limiting membrane peeling: a comparative study. Japanese journal of ophthalmology. 2010;54(2):129–34. pmid:20401561
  17. 17. Oh HN, Lee JE, Kim HW, Yun IH. Clinical outcomes of double staining and additional ILM peeling during ERM surgery. Korean journal of ophthalmology: KJO. 2013;27(4):256–60. pmid:23908571
  18. 18. Ahn SJ, Ahn J, Woo SJ, Park KH. Photoreceptor change and visual outcome after idiopathic epiretinal membrane removal with or without additional internal limiting membrane peeling. Retina (Philadelphia, Pa). 2014;34(1):172–81. pmid:23743638
  19. 19. Kang KT, Kim KS, Kim YC. Surgical results of idiopathic and secondary epiretinal membrane. International ophthalmology. 2014;34(6):1227–32. pmid:25331229
  20. 20. 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 afetr single versus double peeling during vitrectomy for macular epiretinal membranes. Retina (Philadelphia, Pa). 2016;36(11):2101–9.
  21. 21. De Novelli FJ, Goldbaum M, Monteiro MLR, Aggio FB, Nobrega MJ, Takahashi WY. Recurrence rate and need for reoperation after surgery with or without internal limiting membrane removal for the treatment of the epiretinal membrane. International journal of retina and vitreous. 2017;3:48. pmid:29238614
  22. 22. Obata S, Fujikawa M, Iwasaki K, Kakinoki M, Sawada O, Saishin Y, et al. Changes in Retinal Thickness after Vitrectorny for Epiretinal Membrane with and without Internal Limiting Membrane Peeling. Ophthalmic research. 2017;57(2):135–40. pmid:27760434
  23. 23. 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 (Philadelphia, Pa). 2017;37(5):873–80. pmid:27617536
  24. 24. Lee CH, Lee MW, Choi EY, Byeon SH, Kim SS, Koh HJ, et al. Comparison of Individual Retinal Layer Thicknesses after Epiretinal Membrane Surgery with or without Internal Limiting Membrane Peeling. Journal of ophthalmology. 2018;2018:1256781. pmid:30420914
  25. 25. Sultan H, Wykoff CC, Shah AR. Five-Year Outcomes of Surgically Treated Symptomatic Epiretinal Membranes With and Without Internal Limiting Membrane Peeling. Ophthalmic surgery, lasers & imaging retina. 2018;49(5):296–302.
  26. 26. Yang XQ, Li T. Vitrectomy combine with double membranes peeling for idiopathic epiretinal membrane. International Eye Science. 2018;18(11):2011–5.
  27. 27. Ripandelli G, Scarinci F, Piaggi P, Guidi G, Pileri M, Cupo G, et al. Macular pucker: to peel or not to peel the internal limiting membrane? A microperimetric response. Retina (Philadelphia, Pa). 2015;35(3):498–507. pmid:25158943
  28. 28. 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. The British journal of ophthalmology. 2017;101(6):719–24. pmid:28045374
  29. 29. 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 (Philadelphia, Pa). 2019;39(3):601–7.
  30. 30. Russo A, Morescalchi F, Gambicorti E, Cancarini A, Costagliola C, Semeraro F. Epiretianl membrane removal with foveal-sparing internal limiting membrane peeling: A Pilot Study. Retina (Philadelphia, Pa). 2019;39(11):2116–24. pmid:30063558
  31. 31. Storch MW, Khattab MH, Lauermann P, Kruger C, Ritzau-Tondrow U, Staudenmaier R, et al. [Macular pucker surgery with and without delamination of the internal limiting membrane-a prospective randomized study]. Der Ophthalmologe: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft. 2019;116(11):1038–45. pmid:31300845
  32. 32. Hwang JU, Sohn J, Moon BG, Joe SG, Lee JY, Kim JG, et al. Assessment of macular function for idiopathic epiretinal membranes classified by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science. 2012;53(7):3562–9. pmid:22538422
  33. 33. Gao M, Wang Y, Liu W, Liu L, Yan W, Liu J, et al. Assessment of macular function in patients with idiopathic Epiretinal membrane by multifocal Electroretinography: correlation with visual acuity and optical coherence tomography. BMC ophthalmology. 2017;17(1):221. pmid:29183292
  34. 34. Lai S, Rathschuler F, Colacino R, Rossi P, Ciurlo G. Internal limiting membrane changes after epiretinal peeling. Journal francais d'ophtalmologie. 1991;14(11–12):647–9. pmid:1797916
  35. 35. Maia M, Kellner L, De Juan E Jr, Smith R, Farah ME, Margalit E, et al. Effects of indocyanine green injection on the retinal surface and into the subretinal space in rabbits. Retina (Philadelphia, Pa). 2004;24(1):80–91. pmid:15076948
  36. 36. Maguire AM, Smiddy WE, Nanda SK, Michels RG, de la Cruz Z, Green WR. Clinicopathologic correlation of recurrent epiretinal membranes after previous surgical removal. Retina (Philadelphia, Pa). 1990;10(3):213–22. pmid:2236947
  37. 37. Burk SE, Da Mata AP, Snyder ME, Rosa RH Jr., Foster RE. Indocyanine green-assisted peeling of the retinal internal limiting membrane. Ophthalmology. 2000;107(11):2010–4. pmid:11054324
  38. 38. Gandorfer A, Haritoglou C, Gass CA, Ulbig MW, Kampik A. Indocyanine green-assisted peeling of the internal limiting membrane may cause retinal damage. American journal of ophthalmology. 2001;132(3):431–3. pmid:11530071
  39. 39. Choi WS, Jeong WJ, Kwon YH. Clinical Outcomes of Indocyanine Green-Assisted Peeling of the Internal Limiting Membrane in Epiretinal Membrane Surgery. Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society. 2016;57(3):445–52.
  40. 40. Rodrigues EB, Maia M, Penha FM, Dib E, Melo GB, Maia A, et al. Staining properties of brilliant blue depending on different incubation times and solvents in humans. Ophthalmologica Journal international d'ophtalmologie International journal of ophthalmology Zeitschrift fur Augenheilkunde. 2013;230 Suppl 2:68–72. pmid:24022721
  41. 41. Rogozinski A, Tuifua T, Srivastava SK, Kaiser PK, Hu M, Rachitskaya A, et al. Comparative evaluation of surgical outcomes of intraoperative OCT-guided and conventional surgery for epiretinal membrane peeling from the DISCOVER study. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2019;60(9).
  42. 42. Kumagai K, Ogino N, Demizu S, Shinjo U, Shioya M, Ueda K. Foveal thickness and retinal sensitivity following surgery for idiopathic epiretinal membrane. Japanese Journal of Clinical Ophthalmology. 2000;54(1):59–62.
  43. 43. Falkner-Radler CI, Glittenberg C, Binder S. Spectral domain high-definition optical coherence tomography in patients undergoing epiretinal membrane surgery. Ophthalmic surgery, lasers & imaging: the official journal of the International Society for Imaging in the Eye. 2009;40(3):270–6. pmid:19485291
  44. 44. Deltour JB, Masse H, Lebreton O, Weber M, Nantes C. Detrimental effect of active internal limiting membrane peeling during macular pucker surgery: Microperimetry analysis. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2015;56(7):5056.