Evidence Hub

Outcomes from the Retrospective Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study on Lamellar Macular Hole Surgery

Hanna Haave, B. Petrovski, Michal Zajac, X. Lumi, Wassiliki Melekidou, L. Lytvynchuk, A. Ruban, L. Znaor et al.

Clinical Ophthalmology, 2022

66 participants · 11 citations

Abstract

Purpose To analyze the functional and anatomical parameters of lamellar macular hole (LMH) surgery with internal limiting membrane peeling and determine which surgical technique provides the best visual outcome. Methods This is a retrospective multicenter cross-sectional study on patients who underwent pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for LMH with or without combined phaco-vitrectomy, as well as gas-, air- or BSS-tamponade. Pre- and postoperative examination included best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) measurements for functional comparison and optical coherence tomography (OCT) scans to determine the contributing anatomical parameters. Results A total of 66 consecutive patients were included (age: 71.79 ± 8.52 years), of which 47 (71.2%) were diagnosed as tractional type LMH, and 19 patients (28.8%) as degenerative type. An epiretinal membrane (ERM) was present in 63 of the patients (95.5%), LMH-associated epiretinal proliferation (LHEP) was present in 19 patients (28.8%), and 16 patients (24.2%) had concomitant ERM and LHEP. In the group of tractional LMH, the mean central foveal thickness (CFT) was 81.1% thicker (P < 0.05) than in the degenerative group. Thirty-one patients (47.0%) underwent a combined phaco-vitrectomy procedure, while the rest underwent 23G, 25G or 27G PPV. Seventeen of the 66 patients received gas-tamponade (25.7%)-either SF6 or C3F8, 26 received air-tamponade (39.4%), while the remaining 23 patients received balanced salt solution (BSS)-tamponade (34.9%)…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 66 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free