https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9563-9661
Figures
Abstract
Background
To analyse the distribution of spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) biomarkers in different types of vitreomacular adhesion (VMA) associated visual impairment in diabetic macular oedema.
Methods
A total of 317 eyes of 202 patients were enrolled. Cases were divided into two groups focal VMA and broad VMA and subjects with no VMA were enrolled as controls. A grading platform was used for evaluating the morphology of diabetic macular oedema (DME), using good-quality SD-OCT images. Grading was done for VMA and the biomarkers. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT) and central subfield thickness (CSFT) was also recorded.
Results
The CRT (p = <0.001) and CSFT (p = <0.001) values were statistically significant between the groups. Except for Inner Nuclear Layer Cysts (p = <0.001), absence of Bridging Tissue that is composed of muller cell fibers and bipolar cells (p<0.001), and Hyper Reflective Dots (HRD) in cyst (p = 0.006) there were no significant differences in the distribution of OCT biomarkers among the 3 groups (focal VMA, broad VMA and no VMA). Only Disorganization of Retinal Inner Layers (DRIL) (p = 0.044) showed significant association with vision impairment in all the 3 groups.
Citation: Subramanian B, Devishamani C, Raman R, Ratra D (2023) Association of OCT biomarkers and visual impairment in patients with diabetic macular oedema with vitreomacular adhesion. PLoS ONE 18(7): e0288879. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288879
Editor: Karim Adly Raafat, Cairo University Kasr Alainy Faculty of Medicine, EGYPT
Received: April 26, 2023; Accepted: July 5, 2023; Published: July 18, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Subramanian et al. 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: Data is provided as supporting information file.
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
The vitreoretinal interface is an adhesive sheet that connects the posterior vitreous cortex to the internal limiting membrane [1]. With ageing, the adhesion between the posterior vitreous cortex and the inner limiting membrane becomes weak. It causes complete or incomplete posterior vitreous detachment (PVD), resulting in vitreomacular interface (VMI) diseases [2, 3]. VMI abnormalities are reported to occur in up to 7% to 16% of eyes with diabetic macular oedema (DME), with an annual incidence as high as 4.5% [4, 5]. VMI abnormalities are an umbrella term used to describe a series of disorders. These anomalies include vitreomacular traction (VMT), epiretinal membrane (ERM) and vitreomacular adhesion (VMA) [6–8].
VMA describes residual adhesion between the vitreous and macula, occurring within the context of an incomplete PVD. It might not lead to any retinal abnormality but may exert traction on the underlying macula, distorting the retinal architecture and leading to VMT [9]. Studies have shown variability in response to anti-VEGF therapy among eyes with DME associated with different subtypes of VMI abnormalities [4, 10, 11]. There is evidence that OCT-based biomarkers can act as an important factor to predict visual and anatomical outcomes in patients with DME and few of these OCT markers are associated with visual impairment in DME [12–15]. However, the distribution of these OCT markers in the presence of VMI abnormalities and their association with visual impairment has not been studied. Since VMA is one of the VRI abnormalities, this can also alter the retinal architecture [9]. It is necessary to look into the changes caused due to VMA for predicting better clinical outcomes.
This study aims to analyse the distribution of spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) biomarkers in different types of vitreomacular adhesion (VMA) and the associated visual impairment in diabetic macular oedema.
Materials and methods
This was a case–control study held at a tertiary eye hospital in Chennai, South India. The Vision Research Foundation institutional review board approved the study on 5th April 2021, and data were accessed for research purposes from 10th April 2021. Since the study design is retrospective, the data were collected from the visit 1st January 2015 till 30th June 2022. All the research adhered to the tenets of the Helsinki Declaration. Written informed consent was obtained from the enrolled subjects, and all authors had access to subject information for data collection.
The study participants were categorised into two groups; cases in the presence of VMA (+) and controls in the absence of VMA (-). The presence of VMA in our study was identified according to The International Vitreomacular Traction Study Group classification [6]. Where the authors defined VMA according to following criteria 1) Evidence of perifoveal vitreous cortex detachment from retinal surface 2) Macular attachment of the vitreous cortex within a 3mm radius of the fovea 3) No detectable change in foveal contour or underlying retinal tissues. We followed the same International Vitreomacular Traction Study Group classification to further subdivide VMA (+) group in our study into two groups, either focal (<1500 mm) or broad (≥1500 mm), based on the size of the adhesion [6]. (Fig 1) The visual acuity of study participants was divided into no impairment in vision (BCVA between 6/6–6/9) and impaired vision (BCVA <6/12) for analysis according to Vision loss categories chosen by the Global Burden of Diseases (GBD) Vision Loss Expert Group [16].
Optical coherence tomography of images of vitreomacular adhesion showing (A) focal adhesion (<1500mm) and (B) broad adhesion (≥1500mm). Arrows indicate vitreous adhesion to the central macula.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Subjects were included in the study if they met the following criteria: (1) Individuals (18 years or older) with type 2 diabetes mellitus and DME, (2) availability of SD-OCT scans of sufficient quality for grading, and (3) no other confounding ocular condition that could decrease visual acuity other than DME. Subjects with the following criteria were excluded: (1) vitreomacular interface abnormalities besides VMA such as ERM, VMT and macular hole, (2) pre-existing retinal or macular disease other than DR or DME and (3) SD-OCT images with poor quality that was insufficient for assessment.
The medical records of all individuals were reviewed for baseline demographics, including age, gender, duration of DM, DR severity, cardiovascular co morbidities, dyslipidaemia, slit-lamp bio microscopy examination, intraocular pressure, the number and type of anti-VEGF injections given and dilated fundus evaluation. BCVA was measured with Snellen charts and converted to the Logarithm of the Minimum Angle of Resolution (Log MAR).
OCT image analysis
SD-OCT (Cirrus HD-OCT, Carl, Zeiss Meditec Inc., Dublin, CA) was performed on each individual at baseline, and all OCT images were analysed by two graders (optometrist) and, in case of discrepancies examined by an expert (retina specialist). Quantitative measurement, the central retinal thickness (CRT) and central subfield thickness (CSFT) were automatically calculated by the built-in software version 6.0. Qualitative analysis of OCT images was done with a customised grading platform to grade the presence or absence of OCT biomarkers in DME (Fig 2).
Definitions
Grading of Diabetic retinopathy (DR).
Clinical grade of DR as noted by the treating ophthalmologist based on the International Clinical Diabetic Retinopathy (ICDR) disease severity scale was considered as the grade of DR [17].
Type of VMA (focal/broad).
The size of adhesion classified the VMA into either focal (<1500 mm) or broad (≥1500 mm) [6].
OCT markers to predict visual impairment
The disorganisation of inner retinal layers (DRIL).
It was identified if there is a failure to recognise the boundaries of the ganglion cell layers-inner plexiform layer (GCL-IPL) complex, inner nuclear layer (INL), and the outer plexiform layer (OPL) within the central 1000 microns region of interest [18, 19].
Intraretinal cyst.
It was defined as oval or circular lesions with reflectivity lower than or equal to the vitreous, found within the layers of Internal limiting membrane through external limiting membrane, with or without hyper reflective material within the lesion [12]. The cysts were assessed for their location, predominance in inner layers, outer layers or both.
Presence of bridging retinal processes.
These are hyperreflective tissue between cystic cavities, believed to be composed of Muller cells fibers and bipolar cells, and are associated with good functional outcomes [12].
Ellipsoid zone (EZ) and External limiting membrane (ELM) disruption.
The EZ marks the photoreceptor inner segment/outer segment (IS/OS) junction, and the external limiting membrane (ELM) is the junction between Muller cells and photoreceptor inner segments [12]. Discontinuity of EZ and ELM was noted as the presence of disruption.
OCT markers to predict anatomical response to treatment
Hard exudates.
Hard Exudates were identified as irregularly shaped, well-defined lesions of reflectivity equal to or greater than the RPE-Bruch’s complex that cast a shadow on structures beneath them of 30 microns or more in size, which corresponds to discrete yellow-white lipid deposits on fundus evaluation [12]. They were graded as predominance in central 1mm, outside central 1mm, or both.
Hyper-reflective foci.
These were identified as discrete round/ dot lesions with reflectivity similar to that of the retinal nerve fibre layer, of 30 microns or less in size, which is not associated with back shadowing or a corresponding detectable lesion [15]. The continuous or discontinuous ring of hyperreflective dots along the cyst (intraretinal cyst) inner wall was also noted.
The neurosensory detachment.
It was identified as separation the RPE- Bruch’s complex and the interdigitation zone [12].
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was done using statistical software SPSS, version 19.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY). Kruskal-Wallis test (for non-parametric data) was used to compare the control group, and VMA group variables and frequencies were compared using the Chi-square test (for categorical variables). A p-value less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
Results
Table 1 presents the demographic and baseline characteristics of the participants in the study. The three groups, namely focal VMA, broad VMA, and the control group, exhibited similar distributions in terms of gender, duration of diabetes (focal VMA: 11years [8–20], broad VMA: 15 years [10–18] and control: 12 years [8–17]), presence of other systemic diseases, retinopathy grades, lens status, previous treatments, mean number of injections (focal VMA: 2 injections [1–3], broad VMA: 2 injections [1–3] and control: 2 injections [1–3]) and distance vision (focal VMA: 0.50 [0.20–0.70], broad VMA: 0.40 [0.20–0.60] and control: 0.30 [0.20–0.60]). However, there was a significant difference in observed in age (p = 0.020) among the three groups, focal VMA group had a higher median age of 63 years (57–67) years, compared to the broad VMA group 60 years (53–65), and control group 59 years (51–64). Additionally, the values of CRT (p<0.001) and CSFT (p<0.001) also displayed significant difference among the three groups (focal VMA, broad VMA and the control group).
Table 2 shows the distribution of OCT biomarkers between cases (focal VMA group and broad VMA group) and controls (no VMA group). The variables that were found to have a significant differences were cysts in the inner layer (p<0.01), absence of bridging tissue (p<0.01) and hyper reflective dots in the cyst wall (p = 0.006). Other OCT biomarkers such as DRIL (79.80%), cyst in the outer layer (10.57%), cyst in both layers (86.53%), disrupted ELM (68.26), disrupted EZ (68.26), hard exudates within 1mm (1.92), presence of NSD (31.73%), presence of HRF (96.15%) and presence of HR cyst wall (52.88%) were more frequently seen in the broad VMA group but it was not statistically significant.
Table 3 shows whether the presence of these biomarkers was associated with visual impairment in the study groups. Presence of DRIL was associated with visual impairment in all the three groups focal VMA (p = 0.004), broad VMA (p = <0.00) and no VMA (p = 0.044). In the VMA group, cyst location in both layers (focal VMA p = 0.006, broad VMA p = 0.006), discontinuous ELM (focal VMA p = 0.029, broad VMA p = <0.001), discontinuous EZ (focal VMA p = 0.029, broad VMA p = <0.001), presence of HE in both location (focal VMA p = 0.003, broad VMA p = 0.002), presence of HRF (focal VMA p = 0.003, broad VMA p = 0.001) and presence of HR cyst wall (focal VMA p = 0.014, broad VMA p = 0.043) were associated with vision impairment. Similarly, OCT biomarkers like cyst location in outer layer (p = 0.035), absence of bridging lines (p = <0.001) and presence of NSD (p = 0.024) were statistically significant and was exclusively noticed with vision impairment in the broad VMA group.
Discussion
Clinical and pathological evidence suggests that the abnormalities in the vitreoretinal interface may play an essential role in the pathogenesis of DME [11]. DME may be worsened due to anatomical or physiological changes in the posterior vitreous [9]. Traction due to the residual cortical vitreous on the macula after PVD thickened posterior hyaloid or tractional proliferative membranes may worsen DME [20]. Likewise, the loculation of cytokines in the pre-macular vitreous may also exacerbate the DME [13]. On the other hand, abnormalities like VMA and PVD may present as clinically asymptomatic conditions which can only be detected by the OCT [21]. Recent studies have demonstrated that the presence of VMA and PVD may affect the visual and anatomic outcome in subjects receiving anti-VEGF injections for DME and AMD [11, 22–25]. However, the effect of different types of VMA on DME and its association with OCT biomarkers has not been reported previously.
The study results demonstrate that the distribution of OCT biomarkers is similar among all three groups. Still, the visual impairment was largely identified in subjects with a broad VMA group than the other groups. Vitreoretinal interface abnormalities (VRI) play an important role in pathophysiology of macular disease. We noticed that the CRT and CSFT values were higher among the broad VMA group when compared to the focal VMA and control groups. This is an interesting finding. VMA is generally thought to not contribute much to the retinal thickening, but the retinal thickening in VMA associated with DME is assumed to be caused due to the up regulation of VEGF and vascular hyper permeability [11].
Upon further analysis of OCT biomarkers, we found DRIL in most eyes with visual impairment, irrespective of the presence of VMA. Sun et al (2014), described DRIL as the surrogate structural biomarker to predict visual acuity in patients with existing or resolved Centre-involving DME [18]. DRIL can be considered an essential and independent biomarker for poor visual recovery [14]. The distribution of intraretinal cysts was found on the retina’s outer and inner layer in all three groups; however, the broad VMA group showed most eyes affected with vision impairment with intraretinal cysts. In a study conducted by Al Fran et al (2014), it was found that the presence of bridging tissue between cystic cavities is linked to improved functional outcomes after receiving bevacizumab injections. The absence of the bridging process, on the other hand, is associated with poorer outcomes, and leading to retinal thinning and atrophy [26]. In our current study, we observed higher percentage of eyes (76.92%) within the broad VMA group that lacked bridging lines. These findings align with the previous literature and suggest that the outcomes for the broad VMA group are likely to be unfavourable, as indicated by the absence of bridging tissue.
Visual acuity is positively correlated with the survival rate of ELM and with the EZ [18, 27]. We found 68.26% from the broad VMA group, 52.42% from the focal VMA group and 43.63% from the control group with disrupted ELM and EZ. But the vision impairment was severe (p = <0.001) in the broad VMA group. Likewise, a few studies [27–32] state that the location of hard exudates at the macular region and the presence of NSD, HRF and HR cyst wall affect the vision severely, and we found the distribution of these biomarkers to be similar in all three groups. However, vision impairment was associated only with the VMA group, especially the broad VMA group.
VMA can be associated with various known retinal diseases that cause visual dysfunction [6, 33–40]. Several studies provide evidence supporting this hypothesis, suggesting that the occurrence of specific retinal complications is significantly higher in eyes with VMA compared to those with vitreomacular separation [6, 33–40]. This finding aligns with the widely acceptable understanding that VMA eyes exhibit stronger and persistent adhesions at fovea, resulting in detrimental complications [6, 33–40] Our study findings were also consistent with the previous literature. We observed a similar prevalence of biomarkers in eyes with or without VMA, but the presence of these biomarkers was more likely to be associated with visual impairment in eyes with VMA. Additionally, in the presence of VMA, the biomarkers appeared to have a greater extent and severity, which predisposed the eyes to a poorer visual prognosis. Hence, VMA can be considered an additional biomarker indicative of a poor visual prognosis.
Therefore, it is crucial to emphasize accurate diagnosis, long-term monitoring, and appropriate management when dealing with patients who experience adverse consequences associated with vitreomacular adhesion (VMA). In this regard, spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) emerges as a clinically valuable and readily available method that can identify specific abnormalities at the vitreomacular interface that might not be detectable using ultrasonography or indirect ophthalmoscopy [6, 33, 37, 41]. The study’s strength is that we investigated multiple OCT-based biomarkers in a large group of DME patients with and without VMA. There are also some limitations in the current study. Firstly, the study nature is retrospective. Secondly, the study evaluated only the presence and absence of these biomarkers and not their severity, which might influence baseline visual acuity.
Recommendations
As mentioned earlier, VMA may contribute to the development of various retinal complications. To ensure early detection and effective management of subsequent visual complications, it is advisable to closely monitor VMA in the long term. Future studies can be conducted prospectively to analyse the progression of VMA, particularly in terms of identifying any traction leading to macular holes. When general ophthalmologists encounter patients with VMA, it is recommended to schedule regular follow-ups, especially utilizing tests like monthly SD-OCT, if available, to specifically evaluate the vitreomacular interface. If any significant visual dysfunction or retinal complications are identified, it is important to promptly refer the patient to a vitreoretinal specialist.
Conclusion
The presence of VMA and its extent influence the presence and distribution of OCT- biomarkers in DME. The presence of these biomarkers in the presence of VMA has an influence on visual acuity in DME.
References
- 1. Sebag J. Molecular biology of pharmacologic vitreolysis. Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society 2005; 103:473. pmid:17057814
- 2. Larsson L, Österlin S. Posterior vitreous detachment. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1985; 223:92–5.
- 3. Vaughan–Thomas A, Gilbert SJ, Duance VC. Elevated levels of proteolytic enzymes in the aging human vitreous. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000; 41:3299–304. pmid:11006217
- 4. Chang CK, Cheng CK, Bai CH, Peng CH, Hu CC. Development of vitreomacular interface abnormality in patients with diabetic macular edema. Taiwan Journal of Ophthalmology 2012; 2:93–8.
- 5. Kim NR, Kim YJ, Chin HS, Moon YS. Optical coherence tomographic patterns in diabetic macular oedema: prediction of visual outcome after focal laser photocoagulation. Br J Ophthalmol 2009; 93:901–5. pmid:19254904
- 6. Duker JS, Kaiser PK, Binder S, de Smet MD, Gaudric A, Reichel E et al. The International Vitreomacular Traction Study Group classification of vitreomacular adhesion, traction, and macular hole. Ophthalmology 2013; 120:2611–9. pmid:24053995
- 7. Girach A, Pakola S. Vitreomacular interface diseases: pathophysiology, diagnosis and future treatment options. Expert Review of Ophthalmology 2012; 7:311–23.
- 8. Levison AL, Kaiser PK. Vitreomacular interface diseases: diagnosis and management. Taiwan Journal of Ophthalmology 2014; 4:63–8.
- 9. Jackson TL, Nicod E, Simpson A, Angelis A, Grimaccia F, Kanavos P. Symptomatic vitreomacular adhesion. Retina 2013; 33:1503–11. pmid:23714857
- 10. Mikhail M, Stewart S, Seow F, Hogg R, Lois N. Vitreomacular interface abnormalities in patients with diabetic macular oedema and their implications on the response to anti-VEGF therapy. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2018; 256:1411–8. pmid:29779188
- 11. Kulikov AN, Sosnovskii SV, Berezin RD, Maltsev DS, Oskanov DH, Gribanov NA. Vitreoretinal interface abnormalities in diabetic macular edema and effectiveness of anti-VEGF therapy: an optical coherence tomography study. Clin Ophthalmol 2017; 11:1995. pmid:29180844
- 12. Markan A, Agarwal A, Arora A, Bazgain K, Rana V, Gupta V. Novel imaging biomarkers in diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema. Therapeutic Advances in Ophthalmology 2020; 12:2515841420950513. pmid:32954207
- 13. Hsieh YT, Alam MN, Le D, Hsiao CC, Yang CH, Chao DL et al. OCT angiography biomarkers for predicting visual outcomes after ranibizumab treatment for diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmol Retina 2019; 3:826–34. pmid:31227330
- 14. Kwan CC, Fawzi AA. Imaging and biomarkers in diabetic macular edema and diabetic retinopathy. Curr Diab Rep 2019; 19:1–0.
- 15. Szeto SK, Hui VW, Tang FY. OCT-based biomarkers for predicting treatment response in eyes with centre-involved diabetic macular oedema treated with anti-VEGF injections: a real-life retina clinic-based study. Br J Ophthalmol 2021. pmid:34750100
- 16. Bourne R, Price H, Taylor H. New systematic review methodology for visual impairment and blindness for the 2010 Global Burden of Disease study. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2013; 20:33–9. pmid:23350553
- 17. Haneda S, Yamashita H. International clinical diabetic retinopathy disease severity scale. Nihon rinsho. Japanese journal of clinical medicine 2010; 68:228–35.
- 18. Sun JK, Lin MM, Lammer J, Prager S, Sarangi R, Silva PS et al. Disorganization of the retinal inner layers as a predictor of visual acuity in eyes with center-involved diabetic macular edema. JAMA Ophthalmol 2014; 132:1309–16. pmid:25058813
- 19. Grewal DS O’Sullivan ML, Kron M, Jaffe GJ. Association of disorganization of retinal inner layers with visual acuity in eyes with uveitic cystoid macular edema. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017;177:116–25. pmid:28237411
- 20. Johnson MW. Posterior vitreous detachment: evolution and complications of its early stages. Am J Ophthalmol 2010; 149:371–82. pmid:20172065
- 21. Hassan M, Nguyen NV, Halim MS, Afridi R, Sadiq MA, Karkhur S et al. Effect of vitreomacular adhesion on the treatment outcomes in the STOP-Uveitis clinical trial for non-infectious uveitis. Journal of Ophthalmic Inflammation and Infection. 2019; 9:1–8.
- 22. Sadiq MA, Soliman MK, Sarwar S, Agarwal A, Hanout M, Demirel S et al. Effect of vitreomacular adhesion on treatment outcomes in the ranibizumab for edema of the macula in diabetes (READ-3) study. Ophthalmology; 2013; 123:324–329
- 23. Xie P, Zheng X, Yu Y, Ye X, Hu Z, Yuan D et al. Vitreomacular adhesion or vitreomacular traction may affect antivascular endothelium growth factor treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol; 2017; 101:1003–1010 pmid:28596285
- 24. Suzuki H, Morishita S, Kohmoto R, Fukumoto M, Sato T, Kida T et al. The effect of vitreomacular adhesion in exudative age-related macular degeneration on the results of ranibizumab intravitreal injection. Clin Ophthalmol; 2017; 11:1471–1475 pmid:28860695
- 25. Uney GO, Unlu N, Acar MA, Hazirolan D, Altiparmak UE, Yalniz-Akkaya Z et al. Role of posterior vitreous detachment on outcome of anti- vascular endothelial growth factor treatment in age-related macular degeneration. Retina; 2014; 34:32–37 pmid:23751943
- 26. Al Faran A, Mousa A, Al Shamsi H, Al Gaeed A, Ghazi NG. Spectral domain optical coherence tomography predictors of visual outcome in diabetic cystoid macular edema after bevacizumab injection. Retina 2014; 34:1208–15. pmid:24368308
- 27. Sasaki M, Kawasaki R, Noonan JE, Wong TY, Lamoureux E, Wang JJ. Quantitative measurement of hard exudates in patients with diabetes and their associations with serum lipid levels. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013; 54:5544–50. pmid:23847305
- 28. Chew EY, Klein ML, Ferris FL, Remaley NA, Murphy RP, Chantry K et al. Association of elevated serum lipid levels with retinal hard exudate in diabetic retinopathy: Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) Report 22. Arch Ophthalmol 1996; 114:1079–84.
- 29. Ohashi H, Oh H, Nishiwaki H, Nonaka A, Takagi H. Delayed absorption of macular edema accompanying serous retinal detachment after grid laser treatment in patients with branch retinal vein occlusion. Ophthalmology 2004; 111:2050–6. pmid:15522371
- 30. Otani T, Kishi S, Maruyama Y. Patterns of diabetic macular edema with optical coherence tomography. Am J Ophthalmol 1999; 127:688–93 pmid:10372879
- 31. Terada N, Murakami T, Uji A, Dodo Y, Mori Y, Tsujikawa A. Hyperreflective walls in foveal cystoid spaces as a biomarker of diabetic macular edema refractory to anti-VEGF treatment. Sci Rep 2020; 10:1–0.
- 32. Uji A, Murakami T, Nishijima K, Akagi T, Horii T, Arakawa N et al. Association between hyperreflective foci in the outer retina, status of photoreceptor layer, and visual acuity in diabetic macular edema. Am J Ophthalmol 2012; 153:710–7 pmid:22137207
- 33. Tsai CY, Hsieh YT, Lai TT, Yang CM. Idiopathic macular holes and direction of vitreomacular traction: structural changes and surgical outcomes. Eye(Lond). 2017;31:1689–96. pmid:28731057
- 34. Shao L, Xu L, You QS, Wang YX, Chen CX, Yang H, et al. Prevalence and associations of incomplete posterior vitreous detachment in adult Chinese: the Beijing eye study. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e58498. pmid:23544043
- 35. Lewis H. Peripheral retinal degenerations and the risk of retinal detachment. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003;136(1):155–60 pmid:12834683.
- 36. Almeida DR, Chin EK, Rahim K, Folk JC, Russell SR. Factors associated with spontaneous release of vitreomacular traction. Retina. 2015;35:492–7. pmid:25207947
- 37. Martins TG, Martins TG, Rodriguez EE, Costa AL. Vitreomacular traction syndrome. Einstein (Sao Paulo). 2015;13(2):334–5. pmid:25946051
- 38. Sebag J. Anomalous posterior vitreous detachments: a unifying concept in vitreo-retinal disease. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2004;242(8):690–8.
- 39. Sulkes DJ, Ip MS, Baumal CR, Wu HK, Puliafito CA. Spontaneous resolution of vitreomacular traction documented by optical coherence tomography. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118(2):286–7. pmid:10676801
- 40. Meuer SM, Myers CE, Klein BE, Swift MK, Huang Y, Gangaputra S, et al. The epidemiology of vitreoretinal interface abnormalities as detected by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography: the beaver dam eye study. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(4):787–95. pmid:25556116
- 41. Theodossiadis GP, Grigoropoulos VG, Theodoropoulou S, Datseris I, Theodossiadis PG. Spontaneous resolution of vitreomacular traction demonstrated by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;157(4):842–51. pmid:24445034