Epiretinal Membrane Formation after Treatment of Retinal Breaks Cryoretinopexy versus Laser Retinopexy

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to study the prevalence of macular epiretinal membrane (ERM) formation for retinal tears treated with laser retinopexy and cryoretinopexy. The study sought to identify whether there is a difference in ERM formation prevalence between these 2 treatments. Design: Retrospective, single-center, chart review study. Participants: Patients seeking treatment at a private practice institution (The Retina Institute, St. Louis, Missouri) over a 10-year period between 2006 and 2016 for the evaluation and treatment of a retinal tear. Methods: A chart review was conducted comprising all patients undergoing procedures for Current Procedural Terminology codes 67141 (prophylaxis of retinal detachment, cryotherapy) and 67145 (prophylaxis of retinal detachment, photocoagulation) and patients with an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition, Clinical Modification, diagnosis code of 362.56 (macular puckering), who underwent procedures identified with Current Procedural Terminology codes 67141 and 67145. Main Outcome Measures: Epiretinal membrane development, time between treatment and ERM development, and surgical intervention for ERM progression. Results: A total of 2257 eyes underwent treatment for retinal breaks with 1655 eyes treated by laser retinopexy and 602 eyes treated by cryoretinopexy. The mean age of the cryoretinopexy group was 59.4 +/- 1.5 years and in the laser retinopexy group was 61.4 +/- 0.8 years. A total of 74 patients (3.2%) demonstrated an ERM after treatment for a retinal tear during an 11-year period (2006-2016). A total of 26 cryoretinopexy eyes (4.32%) and 48 laser retinopexy eyes (2.90%) demonstrated an ERM after treatment of retinal breaks (P = 0.094). The average time to ERM development was 11.5 months for the cryoretinopexy group and 12 months in the laser retinopexy group (P = 0.878). Seven ERMs progressed to requiring surgical intervention: 2 in the cryoretinopexy group and 5 in the laser retinopexy group. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups with regard to ERM progression resulting in surgical intervention (P = 0.707). Conclusions: Treatment of retinal breaks with either cryoretinopexy or laser retinopexy showed no statistically significant difference in the incidence, timing, or severity of ERM formation between these treatment methods. (C) 2019 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology