Diabetic Retinopathy Visually Threatening
Conditions
Brief summary
Subject/Participant Groups: Study Group: Subjects undergo internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling during vitrectomy for the indication of tractional retinal detachment Control Group: Subjects do not undergo ILM peeling during vitrectomy for the indication of tractional retinal detachment
Detailed description
Hypothesis: Subjects undergoing ILM peeling during vitrectomy will have lower central macular thickness on OCT, fewer postoperative epiretinal membranes, and thereby better final visual acuity to control subjects Randomization: Subjects will be randomized according to a coin toss during PPV, once Grade 2 or Grade 3 vitreoretinal adhesion has been determined: heads undergo ILM peeling, while tails do not. Number of Subjects: With study power of 80%, a significance level of 0.05, a sample size of 60 patients for each group was calculated.
Interventions
PROCEDUREILM Peeling
ILM peeling performed during primary PPV for PDR
PROCEDURENo ILM Peeling
ILM peeling not performed during primary PPV for PDR
Sponsors
Rush Eye Associates
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 85 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion: 1. Subject age is 18-85 years. 2. Subject consents to study participation and is capable of 6 months of follow-up. 3. The subject has type I or II Diabetes Mellitus with active PDR in the study eye. 4. Best-corrected spectacle visual acuity (BCSVA) on the Snellen eye chart ranges from 20/40 to hand motions in the study eye. 5. The subject is determined to need a PPV for the indication of TRD (Grades 2 and 3). Exclusion: 1. Subject is known to have a significant retinal/optic nerve disease otherwise unrelated to Diabetes Mellitus, which in the opinion of the examiner is responsible for two or more lines of reduced BCSVA (macular degeneration, optic neuritis, glaucoma, amblyopia, etc.) in the study eye. 2. Subject is known to have macular ischemia, which in the opinion of the examiner, is responsible for two or more lines of reduced BCSVA in the study eye. 3. Subject has a significant corneal or cataract opacity, which in the opinion of the examiner, is responsible for two or more lines of reduced BCSVA (corneal scar, ectasia, etc.) in the study eye. 4. Subject has had a previous vitrectomy (anterior or PPV) in the study eye. 5. Subject has uncontrolled neovascular glaucoma (intraocular pressure \> 30 mmHg despite medical/surgical treatment) in the study eye. 6. Subject has uncontrolled hypertension (systolic \> 200 mmHg or diastolic \> 120 mmHg) despite adherence to a multiple anti-hypertensive medication regimen.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Postoperative ERM Development | 6 months | Postoperative Epiretinal Membrane Development |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Visual Acuity | 6 months | Rate of subjects achieving 20/50 or better Snellen visual acuity |
Countries
Mexico
Outcome results
None listed