Affiliation:
1. Retina Consultants of Texas, Department of Ophthalmology, Houston, Texas, and Retina Consultants of America, Department of Ophthalmology, Southlake, Texas; and
2. McGovern School of Medicine, Department of Ophthalmology, Houston, Texas.
Abstract
Background/Purpose:
To determine and compare the efficacy of a surgical internal limiting membrane (ILM) flap technique with the traditional ILM peel on long-term visual and anatomical outcomes for large (>400 µm) full-thickness macular holes.
Methods:
From October 2016 to July 2022, patients undergoing initial full-thickness macular hole repair with the ILM flap or ILM peel technique were reviewed. Final outcomes were recorded and based on size in microns: 401 to 800, 801 to 1,200, and >1,200.
Results:
Patients treated with ILM flap (n = 52, 94.2% closure rate) or ILM peel (n = 407, 93.6% closure rate) were followed with a mean follow-up time of 15.0 ± 10.2 and 20.0 ± 13.4 months, respectively. Success rates for ILM flaps and ILM peels were compared for full-thickness macular holes of 401 to 800 (100%, 95.8%, P = 0.39), 801 to 1,200 (95%, 93%, P = 0.74), and >1,200 (86.7%, 86.7%, P = 1.0) µm. Mean best-recorded logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution visual acuity for ILM flaps and ILM peels, respectively, was 1.02 ± 0.46 and 0.87 ± 0.47 preoperatively, with follow-up acuity of 0.48 ± 0.32 (P < 0.03) and 0.39 ± 0.42 (P < 0.01) at Year 3.
Conclusion:
Both techniques provide a similar anatomical closure rate and functional improvement in vision. Comparisons should be cautiously made based on difference in preoperative hole size.
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)