Myopic foveoschisis: a clinical review

R. Gohil, S. Sivaprasad, L.T. Han, R. Mathew, G. Kiousis, Y. Yang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

To review the literature on epidemiology, clinical features, diagnostic imaging, natural history, management, therapeutic approaches, and prognosis of myopic foveoschisis. A systematic Pubmed search was conducted using search terms: myopia, myopic, staphyloma, foveoschisis, and myopic foveoschisis. The evidence base for each section was organised and reviewed. Where possible an authors' interpretation or conclusion is provided for each section. The term myopic foveoschisis was first coined in 1999. It is associated with posterior staphyloma in high myopia, and is often asymptomatic initially but progresses slowly, leading to loss of central vision from foveal detachment or macular hole formation. Optical coherence tomography is used to diagnose the splitting of the neural retina into a thicker inner layer and a thinner outer layer, but compound variants of the splits have been identified. Vitrectomy with an internal limiting membrane peel and gas tamponade is the preferred approach for eyes with vision decline. There has been a surge of new information on myopic foveoschisis. Advances in optical coherence tomography will continually improve our understanding of the pathogenesis of retinal splitting, and the mechanisms that lead to macular damage and visual loss. Currently, there is a good level of consensus that surgical intervention should be considered when there is progressive visual decline from myopic foveoschisis.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)593-601
Number of pages9
JournalEye
Volume29
Issue number5
Early online date6 Mar 2015
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 31 May 2015

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Myopic foveoschisis: a clinical review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Gohil, R., Sivaprasad, S., Han, L. T., Mathew, R., Kiousis, G., & Yang, Y. (2015). Myopic foveoschisis: a clinical review. Eye, 29(5), 593-601. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2014.311