Air vs Gas Tamponade During Macular Hole Repair Surgery

Abstract

Purpose: This work investigates the visual and anatomical outcomes of full-thickness macular hole (FTMH) repair surgery using air in comparison to gas tamponade. Methods: A retrospective consecutive review of medical records was undertaken of all patients undergoing pars plana vitrectomy for idiopathic FTMH at an academic practice from January 2010 to May 2017. Each operative report was reviewed to investigate the agent used for tamponade at the end of the surgery. Preoperative hole duration and size as measured using optical coherence tomography as well as successful postoperative hole closure were recorded. Use of gas or air was not randomized and was instilled at surgeon discretion. Results: The final analysis included 211 eyes. Gas was used as the tamponade agent in 171 of the 211 eyes; most of these eyes (144 of 171) received sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and the remainder received perfluoropropane (C3F8). Forty eyes underwent only a complete fluid-air exchange without any gas placement following vitrectomy. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups in mean preoperative macular hole size ( P = .43). Nine of the 171 macular holes receiving gas tamponade failed to close (5.3%). One of the 40 macular holes receiving only air failed to close (2.5%). There was no statistically significant difference in hole closure rates between the 2 groups ( P = .45). Conclusions: Air served as an equally efficacious internal tamponade agent in comparison to nonexpansile gas following idiopathic FTMH repair surgery.