Skip to main content
Download PDF

Accuracy of biomicroscopy, ultrasonography and spectral-domain OCT in detection of complete posterior vitreous detachment

BMC Ophthalmology volume 23, Article number: 488 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

To evaluate the accuracy of preoperative biomicroscopy (BM), ultrasonography (US), and spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) to determine complete posterior vitreous detachment (PVD) confirmed by intraoperative findings of triamcinolone acetonide-assisted pars plana vitrectomy (PPV).

Methods

This prospective study included all consecutive patients admitted for surgical treatment of the epiretinal membrane (ERM) and macular hole (MH). The presence of complete PVD was determined one day before PPV using BM, US, SD-OCT. The preoperative findings were compared to the PVD status determined during PPV.

Results

A total of 123 eyes from 123 patients were included in the study. Indications for PPV included ERM in 57 (46.3%), full thickness macular hole in 57 (46.3%) and lamellar macular hole in 9 (7.3%) patients. Complete PVD during PPV was observed in 18 (31.6%; 95%CI:18.7–49.9) patients with ERM and 13 (19.7%; 95%CI:10.4–33.7) patients with MH. The sensitivity of preoperative BM, US, SD-OCT was 48.4% (95%CI:30.2–66.9), 61.3% (95%CI:42.2–78.2) and 54.8% (95%CI:36.0–72.7) respectively. The specificity of preoperative BM, US, SD-OCT was 81.5% (95%CI:72.1–88.9), 90.2% (95%CI:82.2–95.4) and 85.9% (95%CI:77.0–92.3) respectively. With a prevalence of 25.2% of PVD in our sample the positive predictive value of preoperative BM, US, SD-OCT was 46.9% (95%CI:29.1–65.3), 67.9% (95%CI:47.6–84.1) and 56.7% (95%CI:37.4–74.5) respectively.

Conclusion

Preoperative BM, US, and SD-OCT showed relatively low sensitivity but also good specificity in assessing complete PVD. A combination of all three diagnostic methods can provide a good assessment of the vitreoretinal interface state.

Peer Review reports

Background

Posterior vitreous detachment (PVD) is defined as the separation of the posterior vitreous cortex from the internal limiting membrane of the retina [1, 2]. Assessment of PVD is important for presurgical planning and consultation in different ophthalmic conditions. The presence of complete PVD before retinal detachment (RD) surgery is associated with a higher primary anatomic success rate and may lead the surgeon to opt for pneumatic retinopexy as a possible treatment modality [3]. Furthermore, patients with RD and visible posterior hyaloid in the fellow eye are associated with a significantly higher risk of RD and need to be closely monitored at the time of PVD development [4]. During macular surgery, mechanical separation of the posterior hyaloid membrane is an important risk factor for retinal breaks [5]. Finally, a more favourable course and response to anti-VEGF therapy are associated with complete PVD in patients with age-related macular degeneration [6], retinal vein occlusion [7], and diabetic retinopathy [8].

The identification of the most efficient and reliable clinical technique for PVD detection still poses a significant challenge. Status of PVD can usually be assessed by slit-lamp biomicroscopy (BM), B-scan ultrasonography (US), and optical coherence tomography (OCT), with varying degree of accuracy [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16]. Biomicroscopy could be limited by patients’ cooperation and examiner experience [9, 15]. Although considered as objective method for the PVD observation, due to its relatively low resolution, ultrasonography could be dependent on examiner ability to detect dynamic vitreous movements [9, 12, 15]. The use of OCT allows clinicians to delineate different retinal and choroidal pathologies, as well as to monitor therapeutic response to different treatment modalities [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32]. Optical coherence tomography with its limited depth of imaging cannot visualize whole vitreous cavity and may provide high percent of false positive PVD findings [12]. To the best of our knowledge, there is only one previous study comparing results of all three diagnostic procedures with surgical findings in patients with different vitreomacular interface disorders [9].

Purpose of this study is to evaluate accuracy of pre-operative BM, US, and spectral domain OCT (SD-OCT) for determining complete PVD confirmed by intraoperative findings of triamcinolone acetonide-assisted pars plana vitrectomy (PPV).

Methods

This was a prospective, consecutive, interventional case series based at the tertiary care Department of Ophthalmology, University Clinical Centre Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina. The study included all patients admitted for surgical treatment of idiopathic epiretinal membrane (ERM) or macular hole (MH) in the period from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019. Exclusion criteria were the following: age less than 40, dense cataract or opaque ocular media that precluded fundus visualization, vitreous haze or bleeding, and all secondary causes in which the vitreous integrity could be jeopardized, including diabetes, high myopia, history of ocular trauma and previous vitrectomy [9, 11, 13]. The current study was approved by the University Clinical Centre Tuzla Ethics Committee (Approval number: 17/2301–6-14). Written informed consent was obtained from all patients after receiving an explanation of the investigative nature and intent of the study and tenets of the Helsinki Declaration were followed.

As part of preoperative preparation, all patients underwent a complete systemic evaluation that included general laboratory findings and a complete systemic examination to identify systemic diseases and drug use. To maximize the chance of achieving the appropriate vitreous evaluation, a complete preoperative ophthalmological evaluation (BM, US and SD-OCT) was performed the day before surgery [9, 14]. The first masked investigator performed slit-lamp BM with fully dilated pupils using a 78D lens (Volk Optical Inc., Enterprise Drive Mentor, OH, USA). A PVD was identified by the presence of a Weiss ring and/or a definitively detached visible posterior hyaloid membrane [9, 14, 15]. It was classified as the presence or absence of PVD in BM.

The second masked investigator performed ocular US using UD-800 (Tomey, Nagoya, Japan). Vertical and horizontal views were used and the mobility of the posterior vitreous was examined during saccadic eye movements with a high gain (90 dB), real-time, through-the-lid contact technique [13]. PVD status was considered when the posterior vitreous cortex was well defined and completely separated from the retina situated posterior to the equator and at the optic nerve head [9, 12, 13, 15]. It was classified as the presence or absence of PVD in US.

Spectral domain OCT images were obtained with fully dilated pupils using Cirrus HD-OCT (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA) with the Macular Cube 200 × 200 Combo protocol [33]. The protocol consisted of two perpendicular line scans centered at the fovea followed by a cube scan also centred at the fovea. The line scans were 6 mm in the transverse direction, had a 2 mm axial depth, and were composed of 1000 axial scans each. The cube scan was 6 × 6 mm, had an axial depth of 2 mm, and consisted of 200 × 200 axial scans [33]. We used the same methodology in accordance with the results of previous research that confirmed that partial and complete PVD can be accurately distinguished on OCT without including the optic nerve in the scan area as long as the imaging is centered and not shifted superiorly [34]. Therefore, SD-OCT scans were considered to have an acceptable position if the top of the scan was at least three “retina thicknesses” above the retinal pigment epithelium in the foveal center with an image quality of 8 and above [11, 34]. The thickness of the retina was measured at the nasal edge of the horizontal scan for each eye, unless this retina was pathologically thickened or thinned, in which case a temporal edge was selected. This criterion was selected to capture the anterior edge of the premacular bursa [11]. Both investigators independently interpreted the SD-OCT scans in a masked manner [12]. Posterior vitreous detachment was confirmed in SD-OCT when a hyperreflective linear signal was clearly separated from the neuroretina [12, 14]. Disagreement about PVD status was resolved by joint review of macular scans [11, 12]. It was classified as the presence or absence of PVD in OCT.

All results of preoperative examinations were compared with the findings of triamcinolone assisted 23 gauge 3-port pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) performed the following day. All surgeries were performed using Constellation (Alcon Laboratories, TX, USA) and recorded with a recording camera. After initial core vitrectomy, 4 mg/0.1 ml of triamcinolone acetonide suspension (40 mg/ml; Krka-Farma, Zagreb, Croatia) was injected and the posterior vitreous cortex evaluated. Vitreous was considered attached when firm vitreous attachment that had to be removed by vitreous cutter suction was observed during surgery. After complete vitrectomy, all patients underwent internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling and the gas tamponade according to surgical indication [35]. In patients with ERM, the peeling of ERM was performed first, followed by staining and peeling of the ILM. The evaluation of PVD status was performed during the surgery and on the surgical video by both examiners [9, 14]. It was classified as the presence or absence of PVD during PPV.

Binary and categorical variables are reported as absolute numbers and percentages and were tested for differences between groups defined by the PPV-confirmed PVD status using the Chi-square test. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated for the BM, US, and SD-OCT findings, using a PPV as a gold standard. Univariable and multivariable receiver operating characteristics (ROC) to obtain the values of the area under the curve (AUC) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were based on logistic regression models predicting the PPV-confirmed PVD result. Multivariable models were adjusted for sex and age. AUCs were compared using deLong test. All the analyses were performed using Stata version 15.1 (StataCorp, College Station, Texas, USA). The significance level for hypothesis testing was set at 0.05.

Results

During the study period, a total of 129 patients underwent PPV for MH and ERM. A total of six patients were excluded from the study: 4 due to a history of ocular inflammation, and 2 with a history of trauma or surgery. Therefore, a total of 123 eyes from 123 patients were included in the study.

The average age of all included patients was 68.35 ± 0.69 (range 41—85) years. A total of 80 (65.04%; 95%CI:51.57–80.95) patients were female, with a female to male ratio of 1.86: 1. Indications for PPV included ERM in 57 (46.34%), full thickness macular hole (FTMH) in 57 (46.34%) and lamellar macular hole in 9 (7.32%) patients. Most of the patients were phakic 106 (86.18%; 95%CI:70.56–104.23), with a mean axial length of 23.12 ± 0.92 mm (range 20.7—25.94 mm). The average preoperative best corrected visual acuity on a decimal scale was 0.15 ± 0.11 (range 0.02–0.5). A total of 7 patients (5.69%; 95%CI:2.29–11.73) underwent surgery on their only functional eye. The mean preoperative intraocular pressure was 15.30 ± 2.20 (range 10–25) mmHg, and 7 patients (5.69%; 95%CI:2.29–11.73) have previously been diagnosed with glaucoma.

Complete PVD during PPV was observed in 31 (25.20%; 95%CI:17.12–35.77) patients (Table 1). Intraoperative PVD was found in 18 (31.58%; 95%CI:18.72–49.91) patients with ERM and 13 (19.7%; 95%CI:10.49–33.68) patients with FTMH (p = 0.096) (Table 2 and Table 3). All three diagnostic methods provided a different degree of accuracy regarding the vitreomacular interface status (Table 1).

Table 1 Overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of BM, US and SD-OCT for detecting complete PVD in different vitreo-macular interface conditions
Full size table
Table 2 Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of BM, US and SD-OCT for detecting complete PVD in patients with ERM
Full size table
Table 3 Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of BM, US and SD-OCT for detecting complete PVD in patients with FTMH and Lamellar macular hole
Full size table

The sensitivity of BM and SD-OCT was rather low for detecting complete PVD, both in patients with ERM and MH. SD-OCT seems to perform better in terms of sensitivity among patients with MH, but with very wide confidence intervals. Ultrasonography performed better compared to the other two diagnostic techniques in terms of sensitivity for all complete PVD (61.3; 95%CI:42.2–78.2), and this is particularly due to its diagnostic performance in detecting PVD in patients with ERM (72.2; 95%CI:46.5–90.3). All three diagnostic techniques have rather good diagnostic accuracy in terms of specificity. Ultrasonography was relatively accurate in diagnosing patients with PVD among those with ERM, as with an underlying prevalence of 31.6% of PVD, the probability of confirmed PVD among patients with positive US was 81.3% (95%CI:54.4–96.0).

The combined diagnostic value of all three diagnostic methods is presented in Table 4. No differences were found in the prediction of PVD between BM alone and SD-OCT alone (adjusted model p = 0.13), and US alone and SD-OCT alone (adjusted model p = 0.66); US alone seems to perform better in predicting PVD compared to BM alone (p-value = 0.03 unadjusted, and p = 0.05 adjusted for sex and age) (Fig. 1. Panel A). The combination of US and SD-OCT increases the AUC to 0.80 (95%CI:0.71–0.89) and further to 0.89 (95%CI:0.83–0.95) when it comes to the age of the patient. The addition of BM did not improve the ability of the US + SD-OCT to distinguish PVD (p = 0.87 for unadjusted model and p = 0.89 for adjusted model). Female patients had a slightly higher prevalence of PVD than male patients (p = 0.057). Age was also strongly associated with the presence of PVD in the entire study population (p < 0.001). Therefore, including sex and age greatly improved the diagnostic ability of all the models (all AUCs above 0.80) (Fig. 1. Panel B).

Table 4 Unadjusted and adjusted ROC curve analysis predicting intraoperatively confirmed PVD
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curves of biomicroscopy (BM), spectral domain optical coherence tomography (OCT), and ultrasonography (US) alone (Panel A) and their combinations (Panel B) to distinguish patients with PVD from those without PVD as diagnosed during intraoperative PPV. Also indicated are the area under the ROC curve (AUC) and the 95% confidence interval (CI)

Full size image

Discussion

In recent years, the evaluation of the posterior vitreous cortex status has become of great interest, while it can be decisive in assessing the best treatment modality for various retinal conditions [3, 6,7,8,9]. Only a few studies that have compared the preoperative reliability of diagnostic methods with intraoperative findings [9,10,11, 14, 16]. In this study, we have quantified the ability of BM, US, and SD-OCT to diagnose complete PVD compared to triamcinolone assisted intraoperative assessment in patients with different vitreoretinal interface disorders. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first prospective study focusing on the detection of complete PVD with all three methods compared to with intraoperative PPV in a relatively large sample of patients with ERM and FTMH.

The main finding of our study is that the three diagnostic procedures were unable to provide accurate information on PVD status compared to the intraoperative PPV findings. This result is consistent with the conclusions of earlier research [9, 11, 14, 16]. In this study, US was the most accurate non-invasive technique for assesing PVD before PPV, which confirms findings previously reported by Kičova et al. [9]. Although triamcinolone-assisted PPV is considered a gold standard for posterior vitreous visualization [16], it is also associated with a lower rate of reoperations [36]. Furthermore, considering the low sensitivity of preoperative diagnostic methods, the use of triamcinolone staining during PPV might be imperative to achieve adequate vitrectomy, resulting in the best possible postoperative anatomical and functional results [16].

The results of the current study indicate that complete PVD is less common, with only a quarter of all patients presenting this finding. Previous studies that analysed the reliability of different diagnostic modalities showed significantly different frequencies of PVD detected during PPV, ranging from 16 to 60% [5, 9, 11, 14]. It is important to note that these studies used different definitions of PVD staging, included different numbers of patients with various indications and preoperative characteristics. However, in patients with FTMH complete PVD is found in approximately 21% of patients [37], which is consistent with 19.7% presented in this study. On the other hand, in cases with ERM, the reported prevalence of intraoperative PVD is between 77.3% and 79.9% [38, 39], which is significantly higher than the 31.6% presented in this study. A possible explanation might be based on the concept of a complete and incomplete PVD [1], i.e. the criteria that were used in previous research. Histopathological studies confirmed that remnants of the vitreous cortex membrane frequently remain attached to the fovea after apparent complete PVD [40]. Unlike previous studies, all patients included in this study underwent complete vitrectomy with triamcinolone staining and ILM peeling. In this manner, we were able to detect and clean all vitreous remnants and reliably determine the state of PVD in all of our cases. Another explanation can be found in the selection of patients included in previous studies, while differences between studies in patient age, race, sex, or prevalence of systemic (diabetes) and ocular (myopia, pseudophakia) factors can certainly have an impact on PVD occurrence [41].

In this study BM has presented a sensitivity of 48.4% to determine the status of PVD by presence of the Weiss ring. The results of previous studies have shown significantly higher sensitivity of 76% [9] and 90% [14], in identifying complete PVD. Although BM can provide a dynamic, wide-angle observation of the posterior pole [14], it is also considered to be an investigator dependent method that is largely dependent on patient cooperation and transparency of the ocular media [9, 15]. In their study protocol, Stavrakas et al. [14] classified all dubious cases as non PVD during the BM examination. However, this protocol was not used in our study, and we have presented a high rate of false positive results and, consequently, a poor sensitivity. On the other hand, the presented specificity of 81.5% could be considered approximately equal to the results of previous research. This could imply, that in cases where the Weiss ring is not clearly visible during BM, it is more likely to be a partial PVD rather than a complete PVD.

Ultrasonography previously reported a sensitivity of 83% in the detection of complete PVD [8], which is better than 61.3% presented in the present study. This difference may be due to several factors. Interpretation of US findings could be subjective and dependent on the examiner’s ability to detect dynamic vitreous movements [9, 12, 15]. Furthermore, due to its relatively low resolution, even with higher gain and direct ocular contact, US has limitations regarding the detection of flat PVD [12]. This probably resulted in a high number of false negative findings and poor sensitivity in the present study, although we used dynamic ultrasonography in all of our cases. Nevertheless, the reported specificity of 90.2% could be considered within the scale of previous reports [9].

The application of OCT is useful for identifying various preretinal, retinal, subretinal, and choroidal changes. High-quality OCT images can serve as an excellent screening tool but also help to monitor response to different therapeutic modalities [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32]. In the analysis of complete PVD, time domain OCT provided a correct assignment in only 12.5% of the cases and reported a high percentage (73.3%) of inadequate evaluations [9]. On the other hand, Hwang et al. used 6 mm SD-OCT images with visualization of vitreous approximately 900 µm above the retina in the foveal centre, and reported a sensitivity of 71% and a specificity of 88% [11]. This is better than our study, with a presented sensitivity of 54.8% and a specificity of 85.9%. Poor sensitivity in this study is consequent to a relatively high number of false positive cases, which may be the result of the shallower section of vitreous included in our SD-OCT images. However, our results are significantly better than those reported by Stavrakas et al. with a sensitivity of 37.5% and specificity of 31.3%, which also included only macular cube images [14]. Interestingly, three dimensional OCT images of the optic disc in a relatively small sample of patients provided the highest sensitivity of 97.4% with a reported specificity of 100% [10].

On the other hand, vitreoretinal adhesion or separation in the optic nerve can be inferred on a 6-mm macular OCT scan, although the optic nerve is not captured in the scan area [34]. Like previous research, we assumed that if the posterior vitreous cortex was visible on the top part of the scan, it was still attached to the optic nerve. On the contrary, we assumed that if the posterior vitreous cortex could not be visualized on the 6-mm OCT scan, it was separated from the optic nerve, that is, that a complete PVD was present. Therefore, 6-mm scans may be sufficient to assess PVD status, and visualization of the vitreoretinal interface at the optic nerve may be less important than previously claimed as long as the images are not shifted too far superiorly [34]. In this research, we insisted on high-quality images of the retina with the lowest possible position of the retinal image.

Optical coherence tomography imaging is an emerging standard of care in the setting of patients presenting with new flashes and floaters [42]. Enhanced depth imaging (EDI) for SD-OCT has further improved depth sensitivity, which enables detailed monitoring of choroidal structure and measurement of choroidal thickness [43]. Recent development of swept-source OCT (SS-OCT) has enabled imaging of larger areas with reduced motion artifact, and a better visualization of the choroidal vasculature [44]. The use of wide-field SS-OCT technology, which allows simultaneous observation of the optic nerve and macula, along with a greater depth of the vitreous included in the OCT image, will certainly enable a more reliable assessment of PVD state in the future [46]. More recent advances include a wide variety of new technologies, including wide-field colour photographs, quantitative fundus autofluorescence (qAF), adaptive optics (AO), and fluorescence lifetime imaging ophthalmoscopy (FLIO) [45]. However, it should be kept in mind that each technology has different capabilities and, to date there is no single modality capable of providing all the necessary information for a certain disease.

In this study, we have also analysed the combined value of all three diagnostic methods. The combined use of SD-OCT and US provided the best results, while the addition of BM did not provide a significant improvement. The rationale is simple, while SD-OCT has the ability to capture shallow PVD, US, on the other side can detect PVD that is highly detached over the retina and also visualize the optic nerve head. Furthermore, our findings indicate that the age and sex of patients, which are highly predictive of PVD status, when considered jointly in the models, significantly improve the diagnostic accuracy of the three diagnostic methods alone.

The strengths of this study include the prospective design and the availability of a wide range of preoperative and intraoperative details. We have insistently used only high-quality images and used the same preoperative and intraoperative protocol, including ILM peeling, in all our patients. The limitations of this study include the examiner related bias, with BM performed and interpreted by one examiner and US by another examiner, and SD-OCT and intraoperative findings analysed by both examiners. A possible source of error is a change in PVD status from examination to surgery [11, 16]. To minimize this possible bias, all patients included in this study underwent a complete standardized examination one day before the surgery [9, 14].

In conclusion, we present the comparative findings of three diagnostic procedures with the intraoperative findings of PPV. Preoperative BM, US, and SD-OCT are associated with relatively poor sensitivity and relatively good specificity for detecting complete PVD. A combination of all three diagnostic methods can provide a good insight into the condition of the vitreoretinal interface. A detailed preoperative examination and planning are necessary to achieve the best intraoperative and therefore postoperative results.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are available in the Dryad repository, https://datadryad.org/stash/share/sbAj2hQrU8sfS9fO9e3qnCgijMbAYv9O1_x4U3bZC-I

Citation: Zvorničanin, Jasmin; Zvorničanin, Edita; Popović, Maja (2022), Accuracy of biomicroscopy, ultrasonography and spectral-domain OCT in detection of complete posterior vitreous detachment, Dryad, Dataset, https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.h44j0zpnp

Abbreviations

AUCL:

Area under the curve

BM:

Biomicroscopy

CI:

CONFIDENCE intervals

ERM:

Epiretinal membrane

FN:

False negative

FP:

False positive

FTMH:

Full thickness macular hole

ILM:

Internal limiting membrane

MH:

Macular hole

PPV:

Pars plana vitrectomy

PVD:

Posterior vitreous detachment

RD:

Retinal detachment

ROC:

Receiver operating characteristics

SD-OCT:

Spectral domain optical coherence tomography

US:

Ultrasonography

References

  1. Sebag J. Anomalous posterior vitreous detachment: a unifying concept in vitreo-retinal disease. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2004;242:690–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ma F, Arcinue CA, Barteselli G, Cheng L, Ezon I, Lee SN, et al. Optical coherence tomography findings of the vitreoretinal interface in asymptomatic fellow eyes of patients with acute posterior vitreous detachment. Retina. 2014;34:447–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rezende FA, Kapusta MA, Burnier MN Jr, Costa RA, Scott IU. Preoperative B-scan ultrasonography of the vitreoretinal interface in phakic patients undergoing rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repair and its prognostic significance. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2007;245:1295–301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wallsh JO, Langevin ST, Kumar A, Huz J, Falk NS, Bhatnagar P. Fellow-Eye Retinal Detachment Risk as Stratified by Hyaloid Status on OCT. Ophthalmology. 2023;130:624–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rahman R, Murray CD, Stephenson J. Risk factors for iatrogenic retinal breaks induced by separation of posterior hyaloid face during 23-gauge pars plana vitrectomy. Eye (Lond). 2013;27:652–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ashraf M, Souka A, Adelman RA. Age-related macular degeneration: using morphological predictors to modify current treatment protocols. Acta Ophthalmol. 2018;96:120–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zheng Y, Woodward R, Feng HL, Lee T, Zhang X, Pant P, Thomas AS, Fekrat S. Implications of Complete Posterior Vitreous Detachment in Eyes with Central Retinal Vein Occlusion. Retina. 2023 Sep 5. https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000003932. Epub ahead of print.

  8. Anderson W, Piggott K, Bao YK, Pham H, Kavali S, Rajagopal R. Complete posterior vitreous detachment reduces the need for treatment of diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2019;50:e266–73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Kičová N, Bertelmann T, Irle S, Sekundo W, Mennel S. Evaluation of a posterior vitreous detachment: a comparison of biomicroscopy, B-scan ultrasonography and optical coherence tomography to surgical findings with chromodissection. Acta Ophthalmol. 2012;90:e264–348.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rahman R, Chaudhary R, Anand N. Verification of posterior hyaloid status during pars plana vitrectomy, after preoperative evaluation on optical coherence tomography. Retina. 2012;32:706–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hwang ES, Kraker JA, Griffin KJ, Sebag J, Weinberg DV, Kim JE. Accuracy of spectral-domain OCT of the macula for detection of complete posterior vitreous detachment. Ophthalmol Retina. 2020;4:148–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Moon SY, Park SP, Kim YK. Evaluation of posterior vitreous detachment using ultrasonography and optical coherence tomography. Acta Ophthalmol. 2020;98:e29–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pessoa B, Coelho J, Malheiro L, José D, Pires S, Coelho C, et al. Comparison of ocular ultrasound versus SD-OCT for imaging of the posterior vitreous status in patients with DME. Ophthalmic Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2020;51:S50–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Stavrakas P, Christou EE, Ananikas K, Tsiogka A, Tranos P, Theodossiadis P, et al. Sensitivity of spectral domain optical coherence tomography in the diagnosis of posterior vitreous detachment in vitreomacular interface disorders: A prospective cohort study. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2022;32:1114–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wang MD, Truong C, Mammo Z, Hussnain SA, Chen RWS. Swept source optical coherence tomography compared to ultrasound and biomicroscopy for diagnosis of posterior vitreous detachment. Clin Ophthalmol. 2021;15:507–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Albabtain B, Mura M, Schatz P, Alsulaiman SM, Alsakran WA, Semidey VA. Comparison of posterior hyaloid assessment using preoperative optical coherence tomography and intraoperative triamcinolone acetonide staining during vitrectomy. Clin Ophthalmol. 2021;15:3939–45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Iglicki M, Busch C, Zur D, Okada M, Mariussi M, Chhablani JK, et al. Dexamethasone implant for diabetic macular edema in naive compared with refractory eyes: The International Retina Group Real-Life 24-Month Multicenter Study. The IRGREL-DEX Study Retina. 2019;39:44–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Iglicki M, Zur D, Busch C, Okada M, Loewenstein A. Progression of diabetic retinopathy severity after treatment with dexamethasone implant: a 24-month cohort study the “DR-Pro-DEX Study.” Acta Diabetol. 2018;55:541–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mello Filho P, Andrade G, Maia A, Maia M, Biccas Neto L, Muralha Neto A, et al. Effectiveness and Safety of Intravitreal Dexamethasone Implant (Ozurdex) in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema: A Real-World Experience. Ophthalmologica. 2019;241:9–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Zur D, Iglicki M, Loewenstein A. The Role of Steroids in the Management of Diabetic Macular Edema. Ophthalmic Res. 2019;62:231–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Iglicki M, Zur D, Fung A, Gabrielle PH, Lupidi M, Santos R, et al. International Retina Group (IRG). TRActional DIabetic reTInal detachment surgery with co-adjuvant intravitreal dexamethasONe implant: the TRADITION STUDY. Acta Diabetol. 2019;56(10):1141–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00592-019-01357-y.

  22. Zur D, Iglicki M, Sala-Puigdollers A, Chhablani J, Lupidi M, Fraser-Bell S, et al. International Retina Group (IRG). Disorganization of retinal inner layers as a biomarker in patients with diabetic macular oedema treated with dexamethasone implant. Acta Ophthalmol. 2020;98(2):e217–e223. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.14230.

  23. Iglicki M, Loewenstein A, Barak A, Schwartz S, Zur D. Outer retinal hyperreflective deposits (ORYD): a new OCT feature in naïve diabetic macular oedema after PPV with ILM peeling. Br J Ophthalmol. 2020;104:666–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Iglicki M, Lavaque A, Ozimek M, Negri HP, Okada M, Chhablani J, et al. Biomarkers and predictors for functional and anatomic outcomes for small gauge pars plana vitrectomy and peeling of the internal limiting membrane in naïve diabetic macular edema: The VITAL Study. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0200365.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Iglicki M, Zur D, Negri HP, Esteves J, Arias R, Holsman E, et al. Results in comparison between 30 gauge ultrathin wall and 27 gauge needle in sutureless intraocular lens flanged technique in diabetic patients: 24-month follow-up study. Acta Diabetol. 2020;57:1151–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Iglicki M, González DP, Loewenstein A, Zur D. Next-generation anti-VEGF agents for diabetic macular oedema. Eye (Lond). 2022;36:273–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Iglicki M, Busch C, Loewenstein A, Fung AT, Invernizzi A, Mariussi M, et al. Underdiagnosed optic disk pit maculopathy: Spectral Domain Optical Coherence Tomography Features For Accurate Diagnosis. Retina. 2019;39:2161–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Iglicki M, González DP, Loewenstein A, Zur D. Longer-acting treatments for neovascular age-related macular degeneration-present and future. Eye (Lond). 2021;35:1111–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Zur D, Iglicki M, Busch C, Invernizzi A, Mariussi M, Loewenstein A. International retina group Oct biomarkers as functional outcome predictors in diabetic macular edema treated with dexamethasone implant. Ophthalmology. 2018;125:267–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Iglicki M, Busch C, Lanzetta P, Sarao V, Veritti D, Rassu N, et al. Vitrectomized vs non-vitrectomized eyes in DEX implant treatment for DMO-Is there any difference? the VITDEX study. Eye (Lond). 2023;37:280–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Iglicki M, Khoury M, Melamud JI, Donato L, Barak A, Quispe DJ, et al. Naïve subretinal haemorrhage due to neovascular age-related macular degeneration pneumatic displacement, subretinal air, and tissue plasminogen activator: subretinal vs intravitreal aflibercept-the native study. Eye (Lond). 2023;37:1659–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Tang F, Luenam P, Ran AR, Quadeer AA, Raman R, Sen P, et al. Detection of diabetic retinopathy from ultra-Widefield scanning laser ophthalmoscope images: a multicenter deep learning analysis. Ophthalmol Retina. 2021;5:1097–106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Brennen PM, Kagemann L, Friberg TR. Comparison of stratus OCT and Cirrus HD-OCT imaging in macular diseases. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging. 2009;40:25–31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Kraker JA, Kim JE, Koller EC, George JC, Hwang ES. Standard 6-mm Compared with Widefield 16.5-mm OCT for Staging of Posterior Vitreous Detachment. Ophthalmol Retina. 2020;4:1093–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Zvorničanin J, Zvorničanin E, Husić D. Eccentric macular hole formation following successful macular hole surgery. Acta Med Acad. 2019;48:312–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Bergamo VC, Caiado RR, Maia A, Magalhães O Jr, Moraes NSB, Rodrigues EB, et al. Role of vital dyes in Chromovitrectomy. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila). 2020;10:26–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Jackson TL, Donachie PHJ, Sparrow JM, Johnston RL. United Kingdom national ophthalmology database study of vitreoretinal surgery: report 2, macular hole. Ophthalmology. 2013;120:629–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Marie-Louise J, Philippakis E, Darugar A, Tadayoni R, Dupas B. Occurrence rate of retinal detachment after small gauge vitrectomy for idiopathic epiretinal membrane. Eye (Lond). 2017;31:1259–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Luc MS, Luc A, Angioi-Duprez K, Thilly N, Berrod JP, Conart JB. Prevalence and predictive factors for posterior vitreous attachment in eyes undergoing epiretinal membrane surgery. Eye (Lond). 2022;36:1302–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kishi S, Demaria C, Shimizu K. Vitreous cortex remnants at the fovea after spontaneous vitreous detachment. Int Ophthalmol. 1986;9:253–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Hayashi K, Sato T, Manabe SI, Hirata A. Sex-related differences in the progression of posterior vitreous detachment with age. Ophthalmol Retina. 2019;3:237–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Wang R, Lovenberg C, Hess O, Todorich B. Role of optical coherence tomography in management of acute posterior vitreous detachment and its complications. Retina. 2023;43:371–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Rothenbuehler SP, Malmqvist L, Belmouhand M, Bjerager J, Maloca PM, Larsen M, Hamann S. Comparison of spectral-domain Oct versus swept-source oct for the detection of deep optic disc Drusen. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022;12:2515.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Laíns I, Wang JC, Cui Y, Katz R, Vingopoulos F, Staurenghi G, et al. Retinal applications of swept source optical coherence tomography (OCT) and optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA). Prog Retin Eye Res. 2021;84:100951.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Chiku Y, Hirano T, Takahashi Y, Tuchiya A, Nakamura M, Murata T. Evaluating posterior vitreous detachment by widefield 23-mm swept-source optical coherence tomography imaging in healthy subjects. Sci Rep. 2021;11:19754.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors declare that they have no one to acknowledge to.

Funding

No funds were needed or received for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, University Clinical Centre Tuzla, 75000, Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina

    Jasmin Zvorničanin

  2. Faculty of Health Studies, University of Bihać, 77000, Bihać, Bosnia and Herzegovina

    Jasmin Zvorničanin

  3. Private Healthcare Institution “Vase Zdravlje”, 75000, Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina

    Edita Zvorničanin

  4. Department of Medical Sciences, Cancer Epidemiology Unit, University of Turin and CPO-Piemonte, 10125, Turin, Italy

    Maja Popović

Authors
  1. Jasmin Zvorničanin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Edita Zvorničanin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maja Popović
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JZ and EZ contributed to research design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation as well as preparation of the manuscript. MP contributed to data analysis and interpretation and provided major revisions to the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jasmin Zvorničanin.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The current study was approved by the University Clinical Centre Tuzla Ethics Committee (Approval number: 17/2301–6-14). Written informed consent was obtained from all patients after receiving an explanation of the investigative nature and intent of the study and tenets of the Helsinki Declaration were followed.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publishers’ 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

Zvorničanin, J., Zvorničanin, E. & Popović, M. Accuracy of biomicroscopy, ultrasonography and spectral-domain OCT in detection of complete posterior vitreous detachment. BMC Ophthalmol 23, 488 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-023-03233-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-023-03233-4

Keywords

BMC Ophthalmology

ISSN: 1471-2415

Contact us