Clinical trial NCT02146144: Prospective, Single-blind Study Assessing the Benefit/Risk Ratio of Internal Limiting Membrane (ILM) Peeling During Epimacular Membrane (EMM) Surgery (Peeling)
Official title: Prospective, Randomized, Controlled and Single-blind Study Assessing the Benefit/Risk Ratio of Internal Limiting Membrane (ILM) Peeling During Epimacular Membrane (EMM) Surgery
Study type: INTERVENTIONAL
Overall status: COMPLETED
Phase: NA
Conditions: Idiopathic Epimacular Membrane
Keywords: Idiopathic epimacular membrane
internal limiting membrane peeling
microscotomas
Lead sponsor: Nantes University Hospital
Sponsor class: OTHER
First posted: 2014-05-23
Enrollment: 213
Sex: ALL
Minimum age (years): 18
Standard ages: ADULT
OLDER_ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: no
Allocation: RANDOMIZED
Intervention model: PARALLEL
Primary purpose: TREATMENT

Brief summary: The epimacular membrane (EMM) is a degenerative condition associated with age, with a variable impact on vision. Treatment is surgery based and consists of a vitrectomy followed by a peeling of the epimacular membrane using a microgripper. Peeling of the internal limiting membrane (ILM) is an adjuvant action that is now frequently practiced and which is expected to increase the success rate of EMM surgery by reducing the risk of recurrence of EMM. Although ILM peeling does not seem to have an adverse effect on visual acuity, it is not totally without consequence, it involves the risk of histological disorganization of the retina at the origin of one or several microscotomas, which are themselves responsible for a final visual discomfort. These microscotomas, resulting in the perception of somewhat black spots visible near the fixed point or the fixed image, may be highlighted by microperimetry and would be a loss of functional opportunity for the patient.

In addition, recurrence of EMM, which the ILM peeling is supposed to diminish, does not alter the vision in half the patients. Furthermore, for those patients who are functionally affected by any such recurrence, a second epimacular membrane peeling surgery can be done.

The main objective of this study is to compare the difference in microscotoma(s) before surgery and 6 months later, between an "active ILM peeling" group and a "no ILM peeling" group. Given the more invasive nature of ILM peeling, the investigators believe that the rate of microscotomas in these patients is higher than those without peeling.

Detailed description: The visits for this trial are those planned for patients receiving EMM surgical operation, namely:

Selection/Inclusion visit : D-90 to D-7 This visit can be split in two according to the requirements of the investigator and/or the patient.

* Full information about the trial
* Verification of the inclusion and non-inclusion criteria
* Obtaining the signed informed consent (the same day or after a period of reflection)
* Medical and surgical history - \*Examination: Visual acuity measured on the ETDRS scale, near vision (Parinaud), spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT), microperimetry and pre-operative: "Patient discomfort" questionnaire (Appendix 7), an assessment of the appearance of the lens at the slit lamp, examination of the fundus after pupillary dilation, biomicroscopic examination of the anterior segment, retinal photography.

Surgery visit D0:

* List of all the surgical procedures
* Randomization for ILM peeling or not, in the operating room after dyeing of the ILM by the Membraneblue-Dual® (Picture of the macula). An anonymous video of the surgery will be sent to Nantes for centralized processing of the analysis of the EMM's grip areas.

To avoid bias, the follow-up visits will be made by an ophthalmologist and/or an orthoptist who will not know what action has been performed.

Follow-up visit M1 (1 month after the surgery ± 7 days)

* Examination: Visual acuity measured on the ETDRS scale, near vision (Parinaud), spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT), Microscopic examination of the eye, microperimetry, fundus photography and post-operative "Patient discomfort" questionnaire (Appendix 8). Biomicroscopic examination of the anterior segment, retinal photography.
* AE

Follow-up visit M6 (6 months after the surgery ± 15 days)

* Examination: Visual acuity measured on the ETDRS scale, near vision (Parinaud), spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT), Microscopic examination of the eye, microperimetry, fundus photography and post-operative: "Patient discomfort" questionnaire (Appendix 8). Biomicroscopic examination of the anterior segment, retinal photography.
* AE End of study visit M12 (12 months after the surgery ± 15 days)
* Examination: Visual acuity measured on the ETDRS scale, near vision (Parinaud), spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT), Microscopic examination of the eye, microperimetry, fundus photography and post-operative "Patient discomfort" questionnaire (Appendix 8), Biomicroscopic examination of the anterior segment, retinal photography.
* AE

Eligibility criteria: Inclusion Criteria:

* Adult patients (\>18 years old) and female without childbearing potential or active contraception (intra-uterine device, contraceptive pill or contraceptive implant).
* Patients with an idiopathic symptomatic epimacular membrane; for patients with both eyes affected, the eye treated in the protocol will be the one which is most severely affected.
* Pseudophakic patients with transparent posterior capsule or open capsule or lensed patients with age-related cataracts
* Patients with social security
* Patients able to understand and follow the trial instructions
* Patients who have signed an informed consent

Exclusion Criteria:

* Patient with other retinal pathologies such as age related macular degeneration ("AMD"), retinal vein occlusion, diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma with macular visual field defect
* Patients with uveitis or history of uveitis
* Patients with any recent eye injuries or eye surgeries (\<6 months)
* Patients participating in interventional clinical trial
* Pregnant or breast feeding women
* Vulnerable people : persons deprived of liberty; under trusteeship or under curatorship

Primary outcomes:
measure: the difference in microscotomas between the inclusion visit and the visit at 6 months after surgery.
timeFrame: 6 months
Secondary outcomes:
measure: Study of anatomical and functional changes of the retina
timeFrame: 12 months
measure: Study the rate of EMM recurrence (at M12) between the 2 groups.
timeFrame: 12 months
Other outcomes:
Locations:
city: Dijon
country: France
facility: CHU de Dijon
city: Nantes
country: France
facility: Clinique Sourdille
city: Nantes
country: France
facility: CHU de Nantes
city: Paris
country: France
facility: Fondation Ophtalmologique A. de Rothschild
city: Paris
country: France
facility: Hôpital Lariboisière (AP-HP)
city: Saint-Herblain
country: France
facility: Polyclinique de l'atlantique
Study officials:
affiliation: Hôpital Lariboisière, AP-HP
name: Ramin Tadayoni, Pr
role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
affiliation: Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Dijon
name: Catherine Creuzot-Garchet, Pr
role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
affiliation: Fondation Ophtalmologique A. de Rothschild
name: Yannick Le Mer, Pr
role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
References:
citation: Ducloyer JB, Ivan J, Poinas A, Lebreton O, Bonissent A, Fossum P, Volteau C, Tadayoni R, Creuzot-Garchet C, Le Mer Y, Perol J, Fortin J, Chiffoleau A, Billaud F, Ivan C, Weber M. Does internal limiting membrane peeling during epiretinal membrane surgery induce microscotomas on microperimetry? Study protocol for PEELING, a randomized controlled clinical trial. Trials. 2020 Jun 8;21(1):500. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04433-9.