Skip to main content
Download PDF

Subthreshold micropulse laser therapy for early postoperative macular thickening following surgical removal of epiretinal membrane

BMC Ophthalmology volume 24, Article number: 102 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

This study aimed to investigate the functional and anatomical outcomes of subthreshold micropulse laser (SMPL) therapy in eyes with early postoperative macular thickening after idiopathic epiretinal membrane (iERM) removal.

Methods

This was a prospective and interventional study. Forty-eight eyes from 48 patients with macular edema at 1 month after iERM removal were randomly divided into two groups. Patients in the SMPL group (n = 24) received SMPL therapy while no special intervention was used for the observation group (n = 24). Baseline demographic data and clinical findings before and at 1 and 3 months after SMPL treatment or observation, including best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and the changes in central subfield thickness (CST) and average macular thickness (AMT), were analyzed.

Results

An improvement in BCVA with a decrease in CST and AMT from baseline to the 3-month follow-ups were observed in both SMPL and observation groups. No significant difference in BCVA was observed between the SMPL group and observation group either in the 1-month (0.26 [0.15, 0.52] vs. 0.26 [0.15, 0.39], P = 0.852) or the 3-month (0.15 [0.10, 0.30] vs. 0.23 [0.15, 0.30], P = 0.329) follow-up. There was a greater reduction in CST in the SMPL group versus observation group between baseline and the 3-month follow-up (-77.8 ± 72.3 μm vs. -45.0 ± 46.9 μm, P = 0.049). The alteration in AMT did not differ between the two groups in either 1-month (-16.5 ± 20.1 μm vs. -19.7 ± 16.3 μm, P = 0.547) or 3-month (-36.9 ± 26.9 μm vs. -34.0 ± 20.1 μm, P = 0.678) follow-up.

Conclusions

SMPL therapy led to a significant decrease in CST at the 3-month follow-up while did not significantly improve the visual acuity in patients with postoperative macular thickening following iERM surgery.

Trial registration

The study was registered on Aug 27, 2020 (Trial Registration Number: ChiCTR 2000037227).

Peer Review reports

Background

Idiopathic epiretinal membrane (iERM) represents a common ocular disorder among elderly individuals causing visual impairment and metamorphopsia [1]. iERM is characterized by the excessive growth of fibrocellular tissue that proliferates on the inner surface of the macular region, often culminating in macular pucker and edema. Modern pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) combined with membrane peeling has been considered a safe and effective technique for the treatment of iERM [2, 3]. However, in some cases, macular thickening may persist after iERM peeling and contributes to suboptimal improvement in visual acuity and metamorphopsia [4, 5]. Unlike diabetic or other vasogenic macular edema, iERM-induced macular thickening often exhibits mild inflammation component and little microvascular leakage, and thus may be refractory to conventional anti-inflammatory and anti-neovascularization treatment [6,7,8]. Prolonged persistence of macular thickening may cause further degeneration and functional impairment of the macula [8]. Currently, there is a lack of reliable method to achieve further structural and functional improvement in eyes subjected to ERM peeling.

In the past decade, subthreshold micropulse laser (SMPL) has gained much popularity as a safe and effective treatment alternative for patients with macular disorders [9,10,11]. Different from the traditional laser photocoagulation that achieve its therapeutic effects through the destruction of photoreceptors, SMPL delivers laser energy in short, intermittent, and repetitive bursts, characterized by a sublethal cellular thermal effect, which allow it to selectively act on retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) cells while averting laser-induced retinal damage [12, 13]. The duty cycle, defined as the percentage of time during which the laser is “on” within each micropulse period, allows the dissipation of accumulated heat to the retina tissue [12, 14]. Increasing evidence has demonstrated the clinical safety and effectiveness of SMPL to improve macular function in a variety of diseases, including diabetic macular edema (DME) [11, 14,15,16,17,18,19], macular edema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) [20], central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC) [21, 22], age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and inherited retinal degeneration [23,24,25], and open-angle glaucoma [26].

In this study, we investigate the short-term effects of SMPL on early postoperative macular thickening following surgical removal of iERM, with special attention to the changes in macular thickness and visual acuity.

Materials and methods

Subjects

This prospective study adhered to CONSORT guidelines and conformed to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. The research was conducted in compliance with a suitable accredited institutional review board from the Ethics Committee of Joint Shantou International Eye Center (JSIEC) of Shantou University and the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and has been registered on the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR 2000037227) before the first participant is enrolled. Informed consent was obtained from every patient after an explanation of the nature and possible consequences of the study. Consecutive patients from Oct 2020 to Dec 2021 who met the following criteria were included: 1) male or female aged 40 years or above; 2) diagnosed with idiopathic epiretinal membrane and underwent combined phacoemulsification and 23-guage PPV; 3) presented with persistent macular thickening following iERM removal, which was defined as a central subfield thickness (CST) of over 250 μm based on optical coherence tomography (OCT) morphology at 1 month after the surgery; 4) only one eye of each patient was included in the study. Exclusion criteria include: 1) had a history of PPV surgery before iERM was determined; 2) combined with other ocular diseases, including high myopia (< -6.0 diopters); full/lamellar macular hole, diabetic retinopathy, retinal vascular diseases, macular degeneration, and others; 3) confound systemic diseases including uncontrolled hypertension or diabetes; 4) loss to follow-up. All participants were Asian (Chinese Han population).

Study design

This was a single-center, prospective and interventional cohort study. Consecutive patients were randomly divided into two subgroups using random numbers through a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Patients with an odd number were assigned to the SMPL treatment group while those with an even number were arranged to the observation group. Patients in the SMPL group were offered a single subthreshold micropulse laser treatment within a few days after grouping in the absence of other treatments. Observation-only was chosen for the other group as a control (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of the study. ERM indicates epiretinal membrane; SMPL, subthreshold micropulse laser; ANOVA, analysis of variance

Full size image

Surgical procedures and postoperative medication

All surgical procedures were performed by the same surgeon (W. Chen). Specifically, Standard PPV was performed with vitrectomy system (Alcon Constellation Vision System; Alcon) Indocyanine green (2 mg/ml) was used to visualize the ERM and internal limiting membrane (ILM). Membrane peeling was performed using ILM forceps (Grieshaber, Alcon). The size of ILM removal was approximately 3 disk diameters. No foveal massage was conducted after peeling of ILM. Fluid/air exchange with complete air filling was performed. Triamcinolone acetonide (2 mg in 0.05 ml) was injected into the vitreous cavity at the end of the surgery. The post-operative medication was the same for both groups, which included: 0.3% levofloxacin hydrochloride eye drops, 4 times a day for one month. 1% prednisolone acetate eye drops: 4 times a day during the first week after surgery, three times a day during the second week, twice a day during the third week, and once a day during the fourth week. Tobramycin dexamethasone eye ointment, once nightly for 10 days. No topical medication was used after the SMPL treatment.

Subthreshold micropulse laser (SMPL) treatment

SMPL was performed by the same technician. After topical anesthetic was applied, a Mainster Macular corneal contact lens (magnification factor 1.05×, Ocular Instruments, Mentor, Ohio) was placed over the cornea. SMPL (577 nm pure yellow laser, Supra Scan; Quantel Medical, Cedex, France) was then performed in 400–800 high-density/low-intensity treatment fashion, 300-500mW power, 160-µm spot size, 5% duty cycle, 0.2-second duration, with multiple and fully confluent spots throughout the macular region encompassed by the major vascular arcades. The SMPL treatment was conducted uniformly and consistently, adhering to identical parameters in all treated eyes.

Main outcome measurement

The main outcome measures included the changes in macular thickness and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). All eyes were assessed using Cirrus HD-OCT (Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc, Dublin, CA, USA). Macular thickness was evaluated through the acquisition of 512 × 128 line scans. Measurement of central subfield thickness (CST), defined as the average retinal thickness within the 1-mm central scanned area, and average macular thickness (AMT), representing the average retinal thickness across the nine macular sectors within a 6-mm diameter circle centered on the fovea, was automatically obtained by the Spectral Domain (SD)-OCT system. The changes in CST/AMT were defined as the subtraction of follow-up CST/AMT values from baseline CST/AMT values. SD-OCT was performed at the time of enrollment, and at the 1-month and 3-month follow-ups. Follow-up CST and AMT measurements were taken at the same point as the baseline measurement. BCVA with Snellen chart was evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively.

Sample size

The sample size was calculated based on significance test of difference using the formula for comparison the means of two samples. The power (1-β) was set as 0.90. α = 0.05. The CST was chosen as the main outcome measurement. According to previous literatures [27], the population standard deviation (σ) of CST was determined as 60 μm, and the minimal but significant difference (δ) was set as 80 μm. The sample size was calculated from the following equation:

$$N\;=\;\left(\frac{\left(Z_{{}^{\alpha}/{}_{2}}+\;Z_\beta\right)\cdot\sigma}\delta\right)^2\;\cdot\;\left(Q_1^{-1}\;+Q_2^{-1}\;\right)\;=\;\left(\frac{\left(1.645\;+\;1.282\right)\cdot60}{80}\right)^2\;\cdot\;\left(0.5^{-1}\;+\;0.5^{-1}\right)\;\approx22$$

In this study, 24 patients in each group would be enough to get a statistically significant result.

Statistical analysis

Clinical data were summarized and presented as mean values and standard deviations (SD), range for continuous variables, and percentages for categorical variables. Baseline to follow-up comparisons were assessed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) or Kruskal-Wallis H test (when small sample sizes or nonnormal data were present). The difference in BCVA, CST, and AMT between the two subgroups were analyzed using student-t test or Mann-Whitney U test. Chi square test was used to compare the incidence rates. BCVA were converted to logMAR units for statistical analysis. All analyses were performed using SPSS statistical software (version 25.0, SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL). P values of less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 48 eyes from 48 patients with persistent macular edema after PPV and iERM peeling were included. The patients included 16 males and 32 females, aged 63.1 ± 7.7 years old. The average LogMAR BCVA in all included eyes were 0.30 (0.28 ~ 0.52). The mean CST was 421.4 ± 80.7 μm and AMT was 317.5 ± 33.7 μm at baseline. No significant difference in baseline characteristics between the SMPL and observation groups was found (P > 0.05). Baseline characteristics data are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Baseline demographic characteristics of subjects with persistent macular thickening following surgical removal of epiretinal membrane
Full size table

Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA)

The logMAR BCVA showed a trend toward an improvement in both SMPL and observation groups, and was significantly better in the 3-month follow-up as compared with baseline (0.15 [0.10, 0.30] vs. 0.30 [0.22, 0.54], P = 0.036 for SMPL group, 0.23 [0.15, 0.30] vs. 0.30 [0.30, 0.52], P = 0.016 for observation group) (Table 2). No significant difference in BCVA between SMPL and observation groups was noted, either in the 1-month (0.26 [0.15, 0.52] vs. 0.26 [0.15, 0.39], P = 0.852) or the 3-month follow-up (0.15 [0.10, 0.30] vs. 0.23 [0.15, 0.30], P = 0.329) (Fig. 2). We further divided the patients into two baseline visual acuity levels (logMAR BCVA ≥ 0.4, logMAR BCVA < 0.4) and compared the changes of BCVA in subgroups. In those with a baseline logMAR BCVA of greater or equal to 0.4, there was 90% (9/10) of eyes in the SMP group while 100% (10/10) in the observation group that presented improved BCVA. In those with a logMAR BCVA of less than 0.4, the rate of visual improvement in the follow-up was 78.6% (11/14) in the SMP group and 61.5% (8/13) in the observation group. No significant difference was observed between the two subgroups.

Table 2 Best-corrected visual acuity in subgroups at baseline and follow-ups
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Mean best corrected visual acuity values of patients in the subthreshold micropulse laser (SMPL) group and observation group along the follow-up period. The changes were comparable (P > 0.05) in both groups at different time points. Data were presented as median and interquartile ranges

Full size image

Macular thickness

The central subfield thickness (CST) showed a significant reduction from baseline to the 3-month follow-up in both groups (379.2 ± 75.3 μm vs. 457.0 ± 70.1 μm, P = 0.004 for SMPL group; 385.5 ± 65.3 μm vs. 430.5 ± 65.8 μm, P = 0.049 for observation group) (Table 3). No significant difference in CST values was found between the SMPL and observation groups at the 1-month (438.8 ± 92.9 μm vs. 404.0 ± 63.5 μm, P = 0.137) or the 3-month follow-up (379.2 ± 75.3 μm vs. 385.5 ± 65.3 μm, P = 0.757) (Fig. 3A). We further analyzed the changes in CST between the two subgroups. In the 3-month follow-up, a greater reduction in CST was noted in the SMPL group than observation (-77.8 ± 72.3 μm vs. -45.0 ± 46.9 μm, P = 0.049) (Fig. 3B). In addition, there was a higher proportion of patients in the SMPL group who had decreased CST from baseline to the 3-month follow-up, as compared with the observation group (23/24, 95.8% vs. 18/24, 79.2%, P = 0.026).

Table 3 Changes in macular thickness in subgroups at baseline and follow-ups
Full size table
Fig. 3
figure 3

Mean central subfield thickness (CST) and average macular thickness (AMT) values in the micropulse laser (SMPL) group and observation group along the follow-up period. A The CST values between the two groups were comparable (P > 0.05). B SMPL group showed significant changes in CST between follow-up and baseline in the 3-month follow-up (P = 0.049) compared with observation group. C-D Both the AMT values (C) and the changes in AMT between follow-up and baseline (D) were comparable (P > 0.05) in both groups

Full size image

The average macular thickness (AMT) was consistent with the CST results comparing the two groups, which showed a trend toward an improvement during the follow-up period, with a significant reduction in the 3-month follow-up from baseline (304.0 ± 33.8 μm vs. 340.9 ± 39.0 μm, P = 0.002 for SMPL group; 296.2 ± 30.0 μm vs. 330.2 ± 34.0 μm, P = 0.001 for observation group) (Table 3). However, no significant difference in AMT between the SMPL and the observation group was observed in the 1-month (324.4 ± 36.6 μm vs. 310.5 ± 29.6 μm, P = 0.155) or the 3-month follow-up (304.0 ± 33.8 μm vs. 296.2 ± 30.0 μm, P = 0.403) (Fig. 3C). There was also no difference in the reduction of AMT from baseline to the follow-ups between the two subgroups either in the 1-month (-16.5 ± 20.1 μm vs. -19.7 ± 16.3 μm, P = 0.547) or 3-month (-36.9 ± 26.9 μm vs. -34.0 ± 20.1 μm, P = 0.678) follow-ups compared to baseline (Fig. 3D). Representative OCT findings of patients in the SMPL and observation groups were shown in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Representative OCT morphology of patients in the subthreshold micropulse laser (SMPL) group and observation group along the follow-up period. A SMPL group; B Observation group

Full size image

Safety

No eyes in this study developed recurrent ERM, full/ lamellar macular hole, or other macular complications requiring additional surgery during the 3-month follow-up period. There was no visible side effect of SMPL to the neuroretinal or RPE in any eye during the follow-up period, such as laser scaring, outer retinal changes or other significant changes in retinal morphology, as evaluated by clinical examination, fundus autofluorescence photography, and SD-OCT.

Discussion

iERM is determined as idiopathic with the absence of other ocular diseases [28]. Several factors, including activation and migration of glial cells, fibroblasts, hyalocytes, as well as the involvement of cytokines and growth factors, have been elucidated as contributing elements in the formation of contractile membranes [1]. PPV following membrane peeling has been considered a safe and effective treatment strategy to improve visual function and metamorphopsia in patients with iERM [3, 29]. However, a notable subset of patients may have macular thickening persisted with limited visual improvement after surgery [30]. Although spontaneous improvement of the macular thickening may occur over the course of several months following surgical membrane peeling, a subset of patients still suffers from persistent macular thickening and limited visual improvement. The pathomechanism responsible for postoperative macular thickening remains unclear, with hypotheses suggesting residual effect of tangential epiretinal traction or microvascular leakage [4, 31]. However, fundus fluorescein angiography demonstrated little to no leakage in these eyes, which did not support the latter hypothesis [27]. Given the absence of angiographic leakage in this process, medical interventions, such as corticosteroids or anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), are often ineffective [32, 33]. We also contemplate whether the postoperative macular thickening in these patients would be indicative of Irvine-Gass syndrome. However, the incidence rate of Irvine-Gass syndrome is relatively low, ranging from 0.1 to 2.35% [34]. In addition, Irvine-Gass syndrome is hypothesized to result from vitreoretinal traction on the macula following cataract surgery, leading to alteration in macular capillary permeability and subsequent cystoid macular edema [34]. In this study, all eyes underwent vitrectomy with complete induction of posterior vitreous detachment. Therefore, the possibility of Irvine-Gass syndrome involvement in this cohort is relatively low, although it cannot be completely ruled out.

The potential of SMPL as a treatment strategy for macular diseases is mainly based on its ability to orchestrate and reactive RPE cells [12, 13]. Using a “low-intensity/high-density” paradigm, SMPL induces activation of heat shock proteins in the RPE, which triggers a physiologic “repair” or “reset” to normalize RPE cell function and cytokine/chemokine expression [13, 35,36,37]. Recent studies also demonstrated the roles of SMPL in other target cells, including the inhibition of microglial activation and neuroinflammation, and down-regulation of Müller cell-derived VEGF expression [36, 38]. Besides, SMPL played anti-apoptotic and neuroprotective effects on retinal Müller cell and ganglion cells, and was found to increased tissue nitrous oxide and improves mitochondrial function [39, 40]. These findings open up new ideas for the potential of SMPL in improving retinal metabolism, morphology and function.

In this study, we introduced SMPL as an adjunctive therapy for patient with early postoperative macular thickening subsequent to iERM peeling. It was noted that both SMPL-treated and observation groups exhibited visual improvement during the 3-month follow-up, whereas SMPL treatment failed to gain additional visual benefit. This observation was consistent with several previous studies regarding to diabetic macular edema in which SMPL has shown visual acuity outcomes comparable to either conventional laser treatments or non-treated controls [41,42,43]. Although it does not bring additional visual acuity benefits, SMPL can improve macular microstructure by resetting RPE function and regulating glial cell activation, resulting in enhanced contrast sensitivity [42, 44], which is also an aspect of visual function.

Concerning macular thickness, we observed a decrease in CST, slight but significant, in the 3-month follow-up in eyes treated with SMPL than non-treated controls. This finding is consistent with most previous literatures [45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55], which supports the notion that SMPL induces enhancements in macular architecture. In particular, the decrease in CST elicited by SMPL was greater at the 3-month follow-up than the 1-month follow-up, indicating a delayed treatment effect of SMPL in eyes subjected to iERM peeling. The decoupling of functional and anatomical changes in the SMPL treatment process has been previously documented in eyes with DME, CSC, and AMD [45, 55,56,57,58]. In this study, it was likely due to a relatively short follow-up period within which the improvement in visual acuity had not yet been uncovered. Another possibility was that we used a single SMPL treatment. We are left to ponder whether a repeated SMPL treatment might help to amplify or maintain both structural and functional improvements.

It was also noted that the CST demonstrated an improvement following SMPL while the AMT did not, which was inconsistent with a previous study showing significant changes in average retinal thickness instead of CST after SMPL treatment [27]. The reason was unclear. In this study, a ceiling effect may account for this finding, as the average baseline CST in this study (421.4 μm) markedly exceeded the baseline AMT (317.5 μm), leaving more space for CST improvement.

The current study was limited by its single-center design, relatively small sample size, a single SMPL treatment, and short follow-up period. The latter one was associated with poor long-term patient compliance during the long-term visit, possibly due to a stable disease condition as well as the COVID-19 restrictions. As some studies showed the SMPL effects in DME begin to be significant at 3 months post treatment, extending the follow-up time may reveal potential differences between the groups in this study. In addition, there was lack of functional evaluation other than visual acuity, such as microperimetry, mf-ERG and contrast sensitivity, since patients could detect improvement in different functional tests after SMPL treatment. Further investigation with a longer follow-up period and more comprehensive visual function assessment is warranted.

Conclusions

While SMPL has demonstrated efficacy in treating various macular diseases, research on its potential restorative role in early postoperative macular thickening following iERM peeling is lacking. In this prospective study, we observed a significant decrease in CST in ERM-peeled eyes treated with SMPL, although there was no improvement in short-term BCVA compared to the observation group. Despite the less satisfactory visual outcome, SMPL may serve as an adjuvant treatment for early postoperative macular thickening following ERM peeling. It offers hope for improving RPE function and metabolism, particularly in patients who do not respond adequately to anti-VEGF or anti-inflammatory therapy.

Availability of data and materials

All data supporting these findings are contained within this manuscript.

References

  1. Fung AT, Galvin J, Tran T. Epiretinal membrane: a review. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2021;49(3):289–308.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Post M, Cicinelli MV, Zanzottera EC, Marchese A, Bandello F, Coppola M. Prevalence and risk factors of ellipsoid zone damage after pars plana vitrectomy for idiopathic epiretinal membrane. Retina. 2022;42(2):256–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Iuliano L, Fogliato G, Gorgoni F, Corbelli E, Bandello F, Codenotti M. Idiopathic epiretinal membrane surgery: safety, efficacy and patient related outcomes. Clin Ophthalmol. 2019;13:1253–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Frisina R, Pinackatt SJ, Sartore M, Monfardini A, Baldi A, Cesana BM, Semeraro F, Bratu A, Parolini B. Cystoid macular edema after pars plana vitrectomy for idiopathic epiretinal membrane. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2015;253(1):47–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Iuliano L, Cisa di Gresy G, Fogliato G, Corbelli E, Bandello F, Codenotti M. Increased risk of postsurgical macular edema in high stage idiopathic epiretinal membranes. Eye Vis (Lond). 2021;8(1):29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kauffmann Y, Ramel JC, Lefebvre A, Isaico R, De Lazzer A, Bonnabel A, Bron AM, Creuzot-Garcher C. Preoperative prognostic factors and predictive score in patients operated on for combined cataract and idiopathic epiretinal membrane. Am J Ophthalmol. 2015;160(1):185-192 e185.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Massin P, Allouch C, Haouchine B, Metge F, Paques M, Tangui L, Erginay A, Gaudric A. Optical coherence tomography of idiopathic macular epiretinal membranes before and after surgery. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;130(6):732–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. McDonald HR, Johnson RN, Ai E, Jumper JM. AD. F: Retina. 4th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Scholz P, Altay L, Fauser S. A review of subthreshold micropulse laser for treatment of macular disorders. Adv Ther. 2017;34(7):1528–55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Gawecki M. Micropulse laser treatment of retinal diseases. J Clin Med. 2019;8(2):242.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Luttrull JK, Sinclair SH. Safety of transfoveal subthreshold diode micropulse laser for fovea-involving diabetic macular edema in eyes with good visual acuity. Retina. 2014;34(10):2010–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hirabayashi K, Kakihara S, Tanaka M, Shindo T, Murata T. Investigation of the therapeutic mechanism of subthreshold micropulse laser irradiation in retina. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2020;258(5):1039–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Inagaki K, Shuo T, Katakura K, Ebihara N, Murakami A, Ohkoshi K. Sublethal photothermal stimulation with a micropulse laser induces heat shock protein expression in ARPE-19 cells. J Ophthalmol. 2015;2015: 729792.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Luttrull JK, Musch DC, Mainster MA. Subthreshold diode micropulse photocoagulation for the treatment of clinically significant diabetic macular oedema. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89(1):74–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Vujosevic S, Martini F, Longhin E, Convento E, Cavarzeran F, Midena E. Subthreshold micropulse yellow laser versus subthreshold micropulse infrared laser in center-involving diabetic macular edema: morphologic and functional safety. Retina. 2015;35(8):1594–603.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Valera-Cornejo DA, Garcia-Roa M, Quiroz-Mendoza J, Arias-Gomez A, Ramirez-Neria P, Villalpando-Gomez Y, Romero-Morales V, Garcia-Franco R. Micropulse laser in patients with refractory and treatment-naive center-involved diabetic macular edema: short terms visual and anatomic outcomes. Ther Adv Ophthalmol. 2021;13:2515841420979112.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Frizziero L, Calciati A, Midena G, Torresin T, Parrozzani R, Pilotto E, Midena E. Subthreshold micropulse laser modulates retinal neuroinflammatory biomarkers in diabetic macular edema. J Clin Med. 2021;10(14):3134.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Donati MC, Murro V, Mucciolo DP, Giorgio D, Cinotti G, Virgili G, Rizzo S. Subthreshold yellow micropulse laser for treatment of diabetic macular edema: comparison between fixed and variable treatment regimen. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2021;31(3):1254–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lavinsky D, Cardillo JA, Melo LA Jr, Dare A, Farah ME, Belfort R Jr. Randomized clinical trial evaluating mETDRS versus normal or high-density micropulse photocoagulation for diabetic macular edema. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(7):4314–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Buyru Ozkurt Y, Akkaya S, Aksoy S, Simsek MH. Comparison of ranibizumab and subthreshold micropulse laser in treatment of macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2018;28(6):690–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sun Z, Huang Y, Nie C, Wang Z, Pei J, Lin B, Zhou R, Zhang J, Chong V, Liu X. Efficacy and safety of subthreshold micropulse laser compared with threshold conventional laser in central serous chorioretinopathy. Eye (Lond). 2020;34(9):1592–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. van Dijk EHC, Fauser S, Breukink MB, Blanco-Garavito R, Groenewoud JMM, Keunen JEE, Peters PJH, Dijkman G, Souied EH, MacLaren RE, et al. Half-dose photodynamic therapy versus high-density subthreshold micropulse laser treatment in patients with chronic central serous chorioretinopathy: the PLACE trial. Ophthalmology. 2018;125(10):1547–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Luttrull JK, Margolis BW. Functionally guided retinal protective therapy for dry age-related macular and inherited retinal degenerations: a pilot study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016;57(1):265–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Luttrull JK, Sinclair SH, Elmann S, Glaser BM. Low incidence of choroidal neovascularization following subthreshold diode micropulse laser (SDM) in high-risk AMD. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(8):e0202097.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Luttrull JK, Chang DB, Margolis BW, Dorin G, Luttrull DK. Laser resensitization of medically unresponsive neovascular age-related macular degeneration: efficacy and implications. Retina. 2015;35(6):1184–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ma A, Yu SWY, Wong JKW. Micropulse laser for the treatment of glaucoma: a literature review. Surv Ophthalmol. 2019;64(4):486–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Luttrull JK. Subthreshold Diode Micropulse Laser (SDM) for persistent macular thickening and limited visual acuity after epiretinal membrane peeling. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020;14:1177–88.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Bu SC, Kuijer R, Li XR, Hooymans JM, Los LI. Idiopathic epiretinal membrane. Retina. 2014;34(12):2317–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Song SJ, Kuriyan AE, Smiddy WE. Results and prognostic factors for visual improvement after pars plana vitrectomy for idiopathic epiretinal membrane. Retina. 2015;35(5):866–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Dysli M, Ebneter A, Menke MN, Zinkernagel M, Wolf S, Grabe H, Abegg M. Patients with epiretinal membranes display retrograde maculopathy after surgical peeling of the internal limiting membrane. Retina. 2019;39(11):2132–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sigler EJ. Microcysts in the inner nuclear layer, a nonspecific SD-OCT sign of cystoid macular edema. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55(5):3282–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Dolz-Marco R, Hoang QV, Gallego-Pinazo R, Chang S. Assessment of the significance of cystic changes after Epiretinal membrane surgery with internal limiting membrane removal. Retina. 2016;36(4):727–32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Sigler EJ, Randolph JC, Charles S. Delayed onset inner nuclear layer cystic changes following internal limiting membrane removal for epimacular membrane. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013;251(7):1679–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Zur D, Loewenstein A. Postsurgical cystoid macular edema. Dev Ophthalmol. 2017;58:178–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Sramek C, Mackanos M, Spitler R, Leung LS, Nomoto H, Contag CH, Palanker D. Non-damaging retinal phototherapy: dynamic range of heat shock protein expression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(3):1780–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Midena E, Micera A, Frizziero L, Pilotto E, Esposito G, Bini S. Sub-threshold micropulse laser treatment reduces inflammatory biomarkers in aqueous humour of diabetic patients with macular edema. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):10034.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Luttrull JK, Dorin G. Subthreshold diode micropulse laser photocoagulation (SDM) as invisible retinal phototherapy for diabetic macular edema: a review. Curr Diabetes Rev. 2012;8(4):274–84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Midena E, Bini S, Martini F, Enrica C, Pilotto E, Micera A, Esposito G, Vujosevic S. Changes of aqueous humor muller cells’ biomarkers in human patients affected by diabetic macular edema after subthreshold micropulse laser treatment. Retina. 2020;40(1):126–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. De Cilla S, Vezzola D, Farruggio S, Vujosevic S, Clemente N, Raina G, Mary D, Casini G, Rossetti L, Avagliano L, et al. The subthreshold micropulse laser treatment of the retina restores the oxidant/antioxidant balance and counteracts programmed forms of cell death in the mice eyes. Acta Ophthalmol. 2019;97(4):e559-567.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Luttrull JK, Kent D. Laser for prevention of choroidal neovascularization. In: Choroidal Neovascularization. Singapore: Springer; 2020. p. 401–23.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  41. Venkatesh P, Ramanjulu R, Azad R, Vohra R, Garg S. Subthreshold micropulse diode laser and double frequency neodymium: YAG laser in treatment of diabetic macular edema: a prospective, randomized study using multifocal electroretinography. Photomed Laser Surg. 2011;29(11):727–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Vujosevic S, Bottega E, Casciano M, Pilotto E, Convento E, Midena E. Microperimetry and fundus autofluorescence in diabetic macular edema: subthreshold micropulse diode laser versus modified early treatment diabetic retinopathy study laser photocoagulation. Retina. 2010;30(6):908–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Figueira J, Khan J, Nunes S, Sivaprasad S, Rosa A, de Abreu JF, Cunha-Vaz JG, Chong NV. Prospective randomised controlled trial comparing sub-threshold micropulse diode laser photocoagulation and conventional green laser for clinically significant diabetic macular oedema. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009;93(10):1341–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Chhablani J, Roh YJ, Jobling AI, Fletcher EL, Lek JJ, Bansal P, Guymer R, Luttrull JK. Restorative retinal laser therapy: Present state and future directions. Surv Ophthalmol. 2018;63(3):307–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Ozmert E, Demirel S, Yanik O, Batioglu F. Low-fluence photodynamic therapy versus subthreshold micropulse yellow wavelength laser in the treatment of chronic central serous chorioretinopathy. J Ophthalmol. 2016;2016:3513794.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Othman IS, Eissa SA, Kotb MS, Sadek SH. Subthreshold diode-laser micropulse photocoagulation as a primary and secondary line of treatment in management of diabetic macular edema. Clin Ophthalmol. 2014;8:653–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Ohkoshi K, Yamaguchi T. Subthreshold micropulse diode laser photocoagulation for diabetic macular edema in Japanese patients. Am J Ophthalmol. 2010;149(1):133–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Nakamura Y, Mitamura Y, Ogata K, Arai M, Takatsuna Y, Yamamoto S. Functional and morphological changes of macula after subthreshold micropulse diode laser photocoagulation for diabetic macular oedema. Eye (Lond). 2010;24(5):784–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Laursen ML, Moeller F, Sander B, Sjoelie AK. Subthreshold micropulse diode laser treatment in diabetic macular oedema. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004;88(9):1173–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Chen SN, Hwang JF, Tseng LF, Lin CJ. Subthreshold diode micropulse photocoagulation for the treatment of chronic central serous chorioretinopathy with juxtafoveal leakage. Ophthalmology. 2008;115(12):2229–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Koss MJ, Beger I, Koch FH. Subthreshold diode laser micropulse photocoagulation versus intravitreal injections of bevacizumab in the treatment of central serous chorioretinopathy. Eye (Lond). 2012;26(2):307–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Malik KJ, Sampat KM, Mansouri A, Steiner JN, Glaser BM. Low-intensity/high-density subthreshold microPulse diode laser for chronic central serous chorioretinopathy. Retina. 2015;35(3):532–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Scholz P, Ersoy L, Boon CJ, Fauser S. Subthreshold micropulse laser (577 nm) treatment in chronic central serous chorioretinopathy. Ophthalmologica. 2015;234(4):189–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Inagaki K, Ohkoshi K, Ohde S, Deshpande GA, Ebihara N, Murakami A. Subthreshold micropulse photocoagulation for persistent macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion including best-corrected visual acuity greater than 20/40. J Ophthalmol. 2014;2014:251257.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Parodi MB, Spasse S, Iacono P, Di Stefano G, Canziani T, Ravalico G. Subthreshold grid laser treatment of macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion with micropulse infrared (810 nanometer) diode laser. Ophthalmology. 2006;113(12):2237–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Chen G, Tzekov R, Li W, Jiang F, Mao S, Tong Y. Subthreshold micropulse diode laser versus conventional laser photocoagulation for diabetic macular edema: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Retina. 2016;36(11):2059–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Roisman L, Magalhaes FP, Lavinsky D, Moraes N, Hirai FE, Cardillo JA, Farah ME. Micropulse diode laser treatment for chronic central serous chorioretinopathy: a randomized pilot trial. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2013;44(5):465–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Ambiya V, Goud A, Mathai A, Rani PK, Chhablani J. Microsecond yellow laser for subfoveal leaks in central serous chorioretinopathy. Clin Ophthalmol. 2016;10:1513–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This work was supported by the funding from the Shantou Famous Doctor’s Studios to W. Chen, and the Medical Scientific Research Foundation of Guangdong Province, China (No. B2021009) to Hongjie Lin.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Joint Shantou International Eye Center of Shantou University and The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 69 North Dongxia Rd, Shantou, Guangdong, 515041, China

    Hongjie Lin, Zijing Huang, Dingguo Huang, Dezhi Zheng, Peimin Lin, Yangxuan Lin & Weiqi Chen

Authors
  1. Hongjie Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zijing Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dingguo Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dezhi Zheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peimin Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yangxuan Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Weiqi Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Weiqi Chen contributed to the conception and design of the study. Material preparation and data collection were performed by Hongjie Lin, Zijing Huang, and Dingguo Huang. Data analysis was performed by Hongjie Lin and Dezhi Zheng. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Hongjie Lin and Zijing Huang, reviewed by Yangxuan Lin and Peimin Lin, and was supervised by Weiqi Chen. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Weiqi Chen.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study adhered to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethic Committee of Joint Shantou International Eye Center of Shantou University and The Chinese University of Hong Kong and has been registered on the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR 2000037227). Informed consent was obtained from every patient after an explanation of the nature and possible consequences of the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable (There is no information or images that could lead to identification of a study participant in this manuscript).

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lin, H., Huang, Z., Huang, D. et al. Subthreshold micropulse laser therapy for early postoperative macular thickening following surgical removal of epiretinal membrane. BMC Ophthalmol 24, 102 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-024-03365-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-024-03365-1

Keywords

BMC Ophthalmology

ISSN: 1471-2415

Contact us