Single-Layer Inverted Internal Limiting Membrane Flap Versus Conventional Peel for Small- or Medium-Sized Full-Thickness Macular Holes
Hung-Da Chou,Laura Liu,Chung-Ting Wang,Kuan-Jen Chen,Wei-Chi Wu,Yih-Shiou Hwang,Yen-Po Chen,Eugene Yu-Chuan Kang,Yi-Hsing Chen,Ling Yeung,Chi-Chun Lai
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2021.08.016
IF: 5.488
2022-03-01
American Journal of Ophthalmology
Abstract:PurposeTo compare the outcomes of using an internal limiting membrane (ILM) flap and the conventional ILM peel technique for small- or medium-sized full-thickness macular hole (FTMH) repair.DesignRetrospective, interventional case series.MethodsEyes with an FTMH ≤ 400 µm that underwent vitrectomy with either a single-layer inverted ILM flap (flap group, 55 eyes) or an ILM peel (peel group, 62 eyes) were enrolled. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) measurements were obtained preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively.ResultsPrimary hole closure was achieved in 54 (98%) and 60 (97%) eyes in the flap and peel groups, respectively. The preoperative and postoperative 12-month BCVA were comparable between the groups but were significantly better in the flap than in the peel groups at 1 month (logMAR, mean ± SD, 0.83 ± 0.43 vs. 1.14 ± 0.50, P = 0.001), 3 months (0.58 ± 0.33 vs. 0.82 ± 0.43; P = 0.002), and 6 months (0.56 ± 0.32 vs. 0.72 ± 0.48; P = 0.028). In the flap group, foveal gliosis was less common than the peel group at 1 month (P = 0.030) and restored external limiting membrane and interdigitation zone was more common at 3 months (P = 0.046 and < 0.001, respectively).ConclusionsBoth the single-layer ILM flap and conventional ILM peel techniques closed FTMHs and improved vision. ILM flaps were associated with better visual outcomes up to 6 months postoperatively and should be considered in FTMHs ≤ 400 µm.
ophthalmology