Study of vitreoretinal interface abnormalities in patients with pseudoexfoliation syndrome Review article

Main Article Content

Rahma Alhayo

Abstract

Objective: Evaluating vitreoretinal interface (VRI) abnormalities in patients with pseudoexfoliation syndrome (PEX).


Methods: In this prospective cross-sectional study (case-control design), the research sample included 67 participants (80 eyes). The control group consisted of 40 participants (40 eyes) who were ophthalmic clinic attendees without PEX, and their right eyes were selected for comparison with the case group. The case group included 27 patients (40 eyes) with PEX who were examined at the ophthalmology clinic at Latakia University Hospital in Lattakia during the period 2024–2025, and who met the study’s inclusion criteria. A detailed medical history was taken, including measurement of distance visual acuity and best corrected visual acuity, Amsler grid test, slit-lamp examination, fundus examination, gonioscopy, intraocular pressure measurement using a Goldman tonometer, visual field testing, and optical-coherence tomography evaluation of the VRI. PEX patients were categorized by pseudoexfoliation severity into 3 groups: mild, moderate, severe.


Results: Rate of posterior vitreous detachment (PVD), partial PVD and epiretinal membrane (ERM) were more common in PEX group, whereas absence of PVD was more common in control group, with statistically significant differences. Complete PVD was more frequent in control group, but the difference was not statistically significant. There was a statistically significant association between ERM and PVD in PEX group as ERM was observed only in eyes with PVD. There was a statistically significant association between severity of PEX and both PVD and ERM rates in PEX group with their rates increases as the severity of PEX increases.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
1.
Alhayo R. Study of vitreoretinal interface abnormalities in patients with pseudoexfoliation syndrome. Ophthatherapy [Internet]. 2026May19 [cited 2026May30];13(1):A0004. Available from: https://www.journalsmededu.pl/index.php/ophthatherapy/article/view/3302
Section
Conservative treatment

References

1. Aoki T, Kitazawa K, Inatomi T et al. Risk Factors for Corneal Endothelial Cell Loss in Patients with Pseudoexfoliation Syndrome. Sci Rep. 2020; 10(1): 7260. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64126-w .
2. Deshmukh U, Deshkar AM. Spectrum of pseudoexfoliation syndrome at LAMC Raigarh – a study. J Evid Based Med Health. 2016; 3(94): 5197-201. https://doi.org/10.18410/jebmh/2016/1085.
3. Adıyeke SK, Kutlu N, Özen K et al. Is pseudoexfoliation syndrome associated with vitreoretinal interface abnormalities? Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2022; 260(2): 431-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-021-05373-z.
4. Lee JY, Sung KR, Kim YJ. Association of Epiretinal Membrane With Pseudoexfoliation Glaucoma and Long-term Factors Affecting Visual Function. J Glaucoma. 2022; 31(7): 595-601. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000002024.
5. Lee JY, Sung KR, Kim YJ. Comparison of the Prevalence and Clinical Characteristics of Epiretinal Membrane in Pseudoexfoliation and Primary Open-angle Glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2021; 30(9): 859-65. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000001851.