Background: Large, chronic full thickness macular holes which failed previous treatments are difficult to manage and even left untreated due to poor prognosis. A retrospective review of consecutive cases with chronic (at least 1 year) full thickness macular holes and internal limiting membrane (ILM) free flap transposition with tuck technique, after previously failed vitrectomy. Methods: This was a retrospective and interventional study conducted in a single centre by a single surgeon. Patients with full thickness macular hole for at least 1 year and at least one previously failed vitrectomy with ILM peeling were recruited. A 25G vitrectomy with ILM free flap transposition was done without assistance of PFCL, viscoelastic or autologous blood. The free flap was manually tucked into the macular hole free space and gas fluid exchange was performed with 20% SF6 as tamponade. The patients were postured prone for 2 weeks postoperatively. Best corrected visual acuity, macular hole duration, previous surgeries, optical coherence tomography (OCT) appearance, hole size and closure rate were recorded. Results: 8 consecutive patients were included from May 2016 to Feb 2018. Transposition surgery was performed an average of 1481 days (SD 1096) after diagnosis of macular hole and average of 1226 days (SD 1242) after first vitrectomy. Macular hole mean size was 821 μm (SD 361.3), preoperative VA was logMAR 1.038 (SD 0.19), postoperative VA was logMAR 0.69 (SD 0.19) at 3 months. There were 1.13 lines gained and a significant improvement of logMAR 0.33 (p = 0.0084) at 6 months. Hole closure was seen in 7 out of 8 eyes (87.5%). The OCT with failed closure showed ILM flap within a flat hole, however no overlying neurosensory layers was seen. The duration from diagnosis to surgery was 2349 days in this case. Conclusion: Free flap ILM transposition tuck without the use of additional intraoperative tamponade is an effective technique in treating large chronic macular holes with previously failed primary macular hole surgeries.
Purpose This study aims to compare the performance of the 25+® UltraVit® 5000 cuts per minute (cpm) vitrectomy probe versus the 25+ ® Ultravit 10,000 cpm® beveled tip, dual drive vitrectomy probe. Method In this prospective randomised controlled clinical trial, 52 eyes of 52 consecutive patients were randomized into either the 10,000 cpm (25 patients) or 5000 cpm vitrectomy group (27 patients). Patients were evaluated preoperatively, intraoperatively, and postoperatively on the first day, and at 1 week, 1 month and 3 months. The main outcome measures were vitrectomy time, and secondary endpoints were time to induction of posterior vitreous detachment, intraoperative complications, and number of instruments used. Results The vitrectomy time was shorter in the 10,000 cpm group (413.7 s) compared to the 5000 cpm group (463.4 s), although there was no significant difference (p = 0.5999). One patient had an iatrogenic retinal break in the 10,000 cpm group while two patients had an iatrogenic retinal break in the 5000 cpm group. The time for posterior vitreous detachment (PVD) induction and the number of instruments used were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The difference in vitrectomy times between the 10,000 cpm vitrectomy probe and the 5000 cpm cutter were not statistically significant. This may suggest that other factors affect efficiency rather than the limitations of equipment.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.