Unilateral recurrent macular hole in a patient with retinitis pigmentosa: a case report
- Miriam García-Fernández†1Email author,
- Joaquín Castro-Navarro†1Email author and
- Antonio Bajo-Fuente†2
© García-Fernández et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013
Received: 4 November 2012
Accepted: 20 February 2013
Published: 14 March 2013
Several macular complications related to abnormalities of the vitreoretinal interface have been classically attributed to retinitis pigmentosa of which cystoid macular edema is the most common. Other less frequent complications are as follows: epiretinal membranes, vitreomacular traction syndrome and macular holes.
A 64-year-old woman, with the previous diagnosis of retinitis pigmentosa, was referred to our department with a complaint of central visual loss in her left eye for 12 months. A fundoscopy and optical coherence tomography examination revealed the presence of a macular hole more than 500 microns in diameter. The patient underwent 20-gauge pars plana vitrectomy. Closure of the hole was observed after surgery, but reopening occurred at 2 years postoperatively.
The pathogenesis of macular hole formation in patients with retinitis pigmentosa is unclear. Surgical outcomes may not always be favorable, and the possibility of reopening must be taken into account, even after a long time.
Several macular complications related to abnormalities of the vitreoretinal interface have been classically attributed to retinitis pigmentosa (RP) of which cystoid macular edema (CME) is the most common. Other less frequent complications are as follows: epiretinal membranes (ERM), vitreomacular traction (VMT) syndrome and macular holes (MHs) [1–4].
The detection of these abnormalities is crucial because they can significantly reduce the visual acuity in patients with RP whose central vision is usually well preserved until the late stages of the disease. The exact prevalence of these alterations is unknown, but we can say that the presence of a MH in patients affected by RP varies from 0.4%  to 10% . The possibility of spontaneous resolution of a full-thickness MH in a patient with RP was once described in the literature  but, generally, a therapeutic approach based on vitrectomy is necessary [1, 7].
We report a case of MH closure after pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) and late reopening, in a patient with RP.
A 64-year-old woman was referred to our department with a complaint of central visual loss for 12 months in her left eye (LE). She had been diagnosed with RP at the age of 28 years.
An electroretinogram showed reduced scotopic and photopic responses in both eyes. Perimetry revealed the presence of an annular scotoma in both eyes, associated to central scotoma in her LE.
After 6 months, her BCVA was 0.1. A biomicroscopy showed the presence of a posterior subcapsular cataract. Fundoscopy and OCT confirmed the closure of the MH. Therefore, crystalline extraction with phacoemulsification (Infiniti Alcon Systems) was performed, and no complications occurred. However, BCVA after cataract surgery did not improve.
The patient came to our center 2 years after the vitrectomy complaining of mild central visual acuity loss in her LE. Her BCVA at this time was 0.1 in the LE and 0.8 in the RE. A fundoscopy (Figure 3B) and OCT examination (Figure 2C) demonstrated the reopening of the previously closed full-thickness MH and the presence of a ring of subretinal fluid and intense retinal atrophy surrounding the hole.
Because of the guarded prognosis, and the high likelihood that a reopening had occurred again due to the severe retinal atrophy around the hole, we decided not to perform surgery.
Before the advent of OCT, CME and other macular pathologies such as MHs were underdiagnosed . CME among patients with RP was reported to be 10% to 20% . With the introduction of the OCT, the prevalence of CME in patients with RP was described to be between 26%  and 38% .
Although the pathogenesis of macular edema in these patients has not been elucidated, it has been postulated that CME is due to a dysfunction of the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) leading to a failure of the pumping mechanism and leakage of fluid through the RPE. However, the presence of a VMT might also contribute to CME formation due to mechanical traction of the posterior vitreous, as it can also occur in healthy patients.
Furthermore, patients with RP have a degenerative vitreous with collapse of vitreous gel and posterior vitreous detachment, which may facilitate all these vitreomacular interface changes .
Vitreoretinal surgery has no influence over the RPE dysfunction and, despite this, good outcomes after PPV have been reported. This fact makes us think that the mechanism of development of CME can differ between patients with RP, with VMT being responsible for CME formation in some patients, and inflammation and dysfunction of RPE pumping in others.
Something similar might occur with MH formation in these patients. The rupture and posterior fusion of the cysts from a CME can obviously contribute to the development of a MH. However, are there any other mechanisms implicated in the formation of a full-thickness MH in patients with RP?
The possibility of spontaneous resolution of a full-thickness MH in a patient with RP was once described in the literature  but, generally, a therapeutic approach based on vitrectomy is necessary.
There are few papers in the peer-reviewed literature about MH surgery in patients with RP. Hagiwara et al.  detected the presence of MH in three out of 622 eyes with RP, and performed surgery on two of them because one of the patients declined surgery. One of the patients obtained MH closure and vision improvement by single PPV and in the other patient repeated PPVs were necessary for MH closure, with reduced visual acuity after surgery related to RPE atrophy.
Jin et al.  reported the results after vitreoretinal surgery for management of four patients with MHs (one associated with a retinal detachment) and RP. Significant improvement of visual acuity was recorded for the three patients, with no change in visual acuity in the patient with retinal detachment.
Reopening of MHs after a primary successful surgery has been attributed to the contractile effect of postoperative ERM . However, this does not seem to be the case in our patient as there was no evidence of ERM in OCT.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case which reports a closure and later reopening of a full-thickness MH in a patient with RP. Was the retinal atrophy surrounding the hole the main reason for its reopening, and are there unknown inflammatory causative factors in these patients which facilitate the recurrence?
Should we highlight in the preoperative counseling the guarded prognosis in cases in which vitrectomy is planned for patients with RP for MH repair?
The pathogenesis of MH formation in patients with RP is unclear. Surgical outcomes are not always favorable, and this is why vitreous surgery may be carefully considered, and the possibility of reopening of the MH must be taken into account, even after a long time. However, it may be difficult to know whether there is a higher tendency for reopening in patients with RP and MH compared to those without RP. Further studies are warranted to confirm or refute these findings.
Oral and written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this case report and any accompanying images. A copy of the written consent is available for review by the Editor-in-Chief of this journal.
- Hagiwara A, Yamamoto S, Ogata K, Sugawara T, Hiramatsu A, Shibata M, Mitamura Y: Macular abnormalities in patients with retinitis pigmentosa: prevalence on OCT examination and outcomes of vitreoretinal surgery. Acta Ophthalmol. 2011, 89: e122-e125. 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2010.01866.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ozdek S, Ozdogan S, Sezgin T, Gurelik G: Bilateral disc edema and unilateral macular hole in a patient with retinitis pigmentosa. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2006, 16: 487-490.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Amemiya K, Takahashi M, Nishida A, Matsumura M, Hayakawa M, Honda Y: A macular hole in the eye of a young patient with retinitis pigmentosa. Nihon Ganka Gakkai Zasshi. 2002, 106: 236-242.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Rao PK, Shah G, Blinder KJ: Bilateral macular hole formation in a patient with retinitis pigmentosa. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 2002, 33: 152-154.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Giusti C, Forte R, Vingolo EM: Clinical pathogenesis of macular holes in patients affected by retinitis pigmentosa. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2002, 6: 45-48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Raja M, Goldsmith C, Burton BJ: Spontaneous resolution of full-thickness macular hole in retinitis pigmentosa. BMJ Case Rep. 2011, 10.1136/bcr.03.2011.3999. pii:bcr0320113999Google Scholar
- Jin ZB, Gan DK, Xu GZ, Nao-I N: Macular hole formation in patients with retinitis pigmentosa and prognosis of pars plana vitrectomy. Retina. 2008, 28: 610-614. 10.1097/IAE.0b013e31815ec341.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Fishman GA, Fishman M, Maggiano J: Macular lesions associated with retinitis pigmentosa. Arch Ophthalmol. 1977, 95: 798-803. 10.1001/archopht.1977.04450050076006.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hajali M, Fishman GA, Anderson RJ: The prevalence of cystoid macular oedema in retinitis pigmentosa patients determined by optical coherence tomography. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008, 92: 1065-1068. 10.1136/bjo.2008.138560.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Paques M, Massin P, Santiago PY, Spielmann AC, LeGargasson JF, Gaudric A: Late reopening of successfully treated macular holes. Br J Ophthalmol. 1997, 81: 658-662. 10.1136/bjo.81.8.658.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.