Evidence Hub

Macular holes with minimal diameter greater than 650 µm close in 85% of cases after vitrectomy and ILM peeling with visual benefit

Bencheqroun M, Couturier A, Chehaibou I, Tadayoni R, Philippakis E

Eye (London, England), 2024

73 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Purpose: To describe the postoperative outcomes of eyes with primary full-thickness macular holes (MH) greater than 650 μm.

Design: Retrospective, monocentric, consecutive case series.

Participants: Patients with primary MH operated at Lariboisière Hospital, Paris, France.

Methods: Records of patients with MH with a minimum horizontal diameter greater than 650 μm that underwent primary surgery with internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling (complete or with inverted ILM flap) between January 2010 and January 2022 were reviewed.

Main outcome measures: Postoperative MH closure rate and visual acuity.

Results: 74 eyes of 73 patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean minimum horizontal diameter was 777 ± 108 µm (650-1114). It ranged between 650 and 800 µm in 40 eyes (54%) and was ≧ 800 µm in 34 eyes (46%). The closure rate was 77% (57/74) after primary surgery and was significantly higher in MH between 650 and 800 µm, than in MH ≧ 800 µm (87.5% versus 64.7%, p = 0.02). In the 58/74 eyes in which conventional ILM peeling was performed, closure rate was 74.1% (43/58), significantly higher in MH ranging between 650 and 800 µm than in MH ≧ 800 µm (84.8% versus 60.0%, p = 0.03). In closed MH, 50/64 (78%) eyes achieved a VA gain ≥0.2 logMAR (3 lines), and 14 (21.9%) eyes a final BCVA ≥ 0.3 logMAR.

Conclusion: MH surgery with conventional ILM peeling allowed closed MH ≧ 650 μm and < 800 μm with a success rate close to 85% that decreased in larger MH. A significant visual improvement…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 73 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