Ophthalmology Case Reports

All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal.
Reach Us +1 (629)348-3199

Short Communication - Ophthalmology Case Reports (2022) Volume 6, Issue 4

Vitrectomy with inward restricting layer stripping versus nonsurgical treatment for diabetic macular edema with gigantic hard exudates.

Junjie Wang*

Department of Information Management, Xinhua College of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China

*Corresponding Author:
Junjie Wang
Department of Information Management
Xinhua College of Sun Yat-sen University
E-mail: mail: junjie@ wang.cn

Received: 28-Mar-2022, Manuscript No. OER-22-119; Editor assigned: 30-Mar-2022, PreQC No. OER-22-119(PQ); Reviewed: 14-Apr-2022, QC No. OER-22-119; Revised: 19-Apr- 2022, Manuscript No. OER-22-119(R); Published: 27-Apr-2022, DOI:10.35841/oer-6.4.119

Citation: Wang J. Vitrectomy with inward restricting layer stripping versus nonsurgical treatment for diabetic macular edema with gigantic hard exudates. Ophthalmol Case Rep. 2022;6(4):119

Visit for more related articles at Ophthalmology Case Reports


Diabetic Macular Edema (DME) is a significant reason for vision misfortune in patients with diabetic retinopathy. A few treatment modalities like central laser photocoagulation, intravitreal or subtenon infusion of triamcinolone, supported discharge corticosteroids embed, and IntraVitreal Infusion (IVI) of hostile to Vascular Endothelial Development Factor (VEGF) have been proposed to oversee DME. Right now, IVIs of hostile to VEGF are viewed as the first-line treatment of decision for DME, while IVI of corticosteroids might be considered for pseudophakic eyes or patients with a high gamble of thromboembolic occasions. Laser treatment keeps on assuming a significant part in forestalling moderate vision misfortune in non-focus including DME. Careful intercessions are ordinarily saved for those with proof of vitreoretinal foothold [1]. Studies have exhibited that vitrectomy has long haul benefits for diffuse DME, in any event, for those without a thickened and rigid back hyaloid. Furthermore, vitrectomy joined with Inner Restricting Layer (ILM) stripping has shown great physical and practical results.

DME with monstrous hard exudates is an extreme type of DME; it as a rule shows exorbitant spillage and is viewed as a poor visual prognostic component. Hard exudates are lipids and proteinaceous materials that store inside the neurosensory retina and in the sub retinal space. Huge hard exudates will quite often store in the fovea region and structure fibrotic plaques, making harm photoreceptors with irreversible focal visual misfortune. Albeit clinical and careful medicines have been proposed for improving the goal of exudates, the illness stays a significant test. Our past report exhibited that standards plana vitrectomy (PPV) with back hyaloid evacuation, central macular end laser, and Pan Retinal Photocoagulation (PRP) can lessen huge macular exudates [2]. What's more, ILM stripping can eliminate the distracting foothold applied by the remaining cortical glassy and ILM, forestall postoperative Epiretinal Layer (ERM) development, and further develop oxygen supply by eliminating the dissemination hindrance. Along these lines, we estimated that PPV joined with ILM stripping might work with the goal of exudates and address a positive treatment for DME with enormous hard exudates. Consequently, this study planned to assess the one-year physical and useful results of DME with enormous hard exudates oversaw by PPV with ILM stripping and contrast them and those oversaw by nonsurgical medicines.

This was a Bicester, review, back to back case series of patients with extreme DME and gigantic hard exudates treated at National Taiwan University Hospital or Changhua Christian Hospital from October 2009 to September 2015. Incorporation measures were as per the following presence of DME with gigantic hard exudates, which were characterized as fovea-involved, single or different patches of intersecting hard exudates with an absolute area of >3 plate regions at the back shaft affirmed by variety fundus photography; presence of intraregional as well as subretinal hyper reflective materials including the fovea affirmed by optical rationality geography (OCT) [3]. A Best-Revised Visual Sharpness (BCVA) of ≤20/200. Eyes with past vitreoretinal medical procedure, proof of a tight back hyaloid or not entirely settled by OCT pictures, glassy drain, dynamic fibro vascular expansion, other retinal vascular infections, choroidal neovascularization, or a subsequent time of <12 months were barred from the review.

Eyes satisfying the previously mentioned models were partitioned into two gatherings: the review bunch, in which everyone's eyes went through PPV with ILM stripping, and the benchmark group, in which everyone's eyes went through just nonsurgical medicines. Eyes treated with just vitrectomy and no ILM stripping was avoided from the review. In this Bicester study, patients treated by three ophthalmologists (CM Yang, SN Chen, and YT Hsieh) were reflectively selected [4]. CM Yang treated every one of his patients with DME and huge hard exudates utilizing vitrectomy and ILM stripping during Oct 2009 and Sep 2015. SN Chen and YT Hsieh treated every one of their patients with DME and monstrous hard exudates utilizing clinical treatment with hostile to VEGF during Oct 2009 and Jan 2013, and treated such patients utilizing vitrectomy and ILM stripping during Feb 2013 and Sep 2015. In the review bunch, eyes that had gotten enemy of VEGF, steroid or laser treatment in somewhere around 90 days of activity was avoided. In the benchmark group, everyone's eyes were treatment-gullible. For patients with simultaneous DME with gigantic hard exudates in the two eyes, the more serious one got careful treatment, and the less extreme one got nonsurgical treatment. This study stuck to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and was endorsed by the Institutional Review Boards of the National Taiwan University Hospital and Changhua Christian Hospital [5].


  1. Kim YT, Kang SW, Kim SJ, et al. Combination of vitrectomy, IVTA, and laser photocoagulation for diabetic macular edema unresponsive to prior treatments; 3-year results. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2012;250(5):679-84.
  2. Indexed at,Google Scholar,Cross Ref

  3. Gupta A, Gupta V, Thapar S, et al. Lipid-lowering drug atorvastatin as an adjunct in the management of diabetic macular edema. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;137(4):675-82.
  4. Indexed at,Google Scholar,Cross Ref

  5. Etter J, Fekrat S. Pars plana vitrectomy and internal limiting membrane peeling in an eye with foveal lipid deposition after focal laser surgery for diabetic macular edema. Can J Ophthalmol. 2008;3(43):373-74.
  6. Indexed at,Google Scholar,Cross Ref

  7. Iglicki M, Loewenstein A, Barak A, et al. Outer retinal hyperreflective deposits (ORYD): a new OCT feature in naïve diabetic macular oedema after PPV with ILM peeling. Br J Ophthalmol. 2020;104(5):666-71.
  8. Indexed at,Google Scholar,Cross Ref

  9. Holekamp NM, Campbell J, Almony A, et al. Vision outcomes following anti–vascular endothelial growth factor treatment of diabetic macular edema in clinical practice. Am J Ophthalmol. 2018;191:83-91.
  10. Indexed at,Google Scholar,Cross Ref

Get the App