Prospective randomized trial: outcomes of SF6 versus C3F8 in macular hole surgery

Briand, Sophie; Chalifoux, Emmanuelle; Tourville, Eric; Bourgault, Serge; Caissie, Mathieu; Tardif, Yvon; Giasson, Marcelle; Boivin, Jocelyne; Blanchette, Caty; Cinq-Mars, Benoit

doi:10.1016/j.jcjo.2014.12.006

Cited by 41 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Other authors used a long acting gas like C 3 F 8 thinking that a prolonged tamponade effect may lead to a larger anatomic success rate [26, 27]. Comparative studies reported similar closure rates in either room air versus SF 6 and SF 6 versus C3F8 [28–30]. Also in this study there were no significant differences regarding the anatomic closure, independently of the stage of the macular hole.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) versus perfluoropropane (C3F8) tamponade and short term face-down position for macular hole repair: a randomized prospective study

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTo compare early visual and anatomical outcomes after either sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) or perfluoropropane (C3F8) tamponade for macular hole repair.Methods147 eyes affected by primary full-thickness macular hole underwent pars plana vitrectomy with dye assisted removal of the internal limiting membrane and gas tamponade. Prone position was prescribed for 48 h after surgery. All patients were divided into 3 groups depending on the size of the hole: small (<250 µm), medium (>250–<400 µm) or large (>400 µm). Eyes within the same group randomly received either SF6 (70 eyes) or C3F8 (77 eyes). A complete ophthalmic evaluation, including best corrected visual acuity and anatomic status of the macular holes, was conducted preoperatively, at 1 week and 1 month after surgery. Macular hole volume was calculated using optical coherence tomography scans. The Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test, the Mann–Whitney Test, the Spearman’s rank-order correlation coefficient and the study of variance for repeated measures were used for statistical analysis.ResultsMean best-corrected visual acuity improved from 0.92 logMAR to 0.28 logMAR (P < 0.001). A reduction of the dimensions of macular holes was observed in all cases, with a total repair of 90 % (63/70 eyes) in the SF6 group and 91 % in the C3F8 group (70/77 eyes). There was a negative correlation between the initial minor diameter, the volume of the hole and the rate of anatomic success.ConclusionsShort-term anatomical and visual outcomes were similar in eyes treated with either SF6 or C3F8, independently of the stage of the macular hole. The initial volume and the minor diameter of the hole may be considered as valid tools for predicting surgical success. Age and gender did not appear to have influenced the prognosis.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) versus perfluoropropane (C3F8) tamponade and short term face-down position for macular hole repair: a randomized prospective study

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…49 An isoexpansile concentration of SF 6 , C 2 F 6 , and C 3 F 8 has been shown to yield similar anatomical outcomes, ranging from 87% to 93%. [49][50][51][52] Both conventional (1,000 centistokes) and heavy silicone oil (HSO) have been used as a tamponade in MH. However, their use has not found much favor.…”

Section: Tamponadementioning

confidence: 99%

Current Management of Macular Hole

Singh¹,

Narayanan²

2019

Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this issue's Practical Retina column, Sumit Randhir Singh, MD, and Raja Narayanan, MD, MBA, from the LV Prasad Eye Institute in Hyderabad, India, discuss the current therapeutic options for repairing macular holes (MHs). We are all aware that there is great discussion and wide variability in thinking among our colleagues regarding approaches to close a MH. Common controversies include when and if internal limiting membrane peeling is necessary, as well as what to do with it after it is peeled (fully or partially to create a flap). Other discussions include choice of tamponade, duration of positioning, and use of retinal grafts. Choice of adjuvants have also been discussed and will be addressed in this article. Drs. Singh and Narayanan tackle this topic in a concise and logical manner. They will provide a thorough review of the literature and provide opinions based on the strength of the evidence in the literature. I am certain that their insights will be very valuable for maximizing outcomes in patients with MHs.

show abstract

“…A number of studies involved patients that underwent of vitrectomy for macular holes of different diameters (including large diameters), and compared different tamponade agents with regard to treatment outcomes. No significant difference in closure rate for large diameter macular holes or for stage 3 or 4 macular holes has been found between sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) or perfluoropropane (C3F8) tamponade groups [14,19].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Results of vitreous surgery with 20% C3F8/air mixture for macular holes larger than 800 μm

Putienko¹,

Therapy²

2019

Oftalmol Zh

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vitreous surgery for large macular holes is still a challenge to the ophthalmologist. Purpose: To assess the efficacy of the 20% C3F8/air mixture in the vitrectomy surgery for macular holes > 800 μm in diameter. Materials and Methods: Twenty-two patients with macular hole of diameter ranging from 800 to 1,470 μm underwent vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling and tamponade with the 20% C3F8/air mixture. Results: At 2 months after gas resorption, the macular hole was completely closed in 20 of the 22 eyes (90.9%). In addition, diameter of the hole dropped from 1,100 μm to 150 μm in one eye, and the hole did not close in another eye. Visual acuity improved significantly (χ 2 = 13.15, p = 0.001) to 0.08-0.35. In 3 eyes, 12 eyes and 7 eyes, visual acuity improved to 0.05-0.08, 0.09-0.12, and 0.14-0.35, respectively. Conclusion: The study demonstrated a high efficacy of the 20% C 3 F 8 /air mixture in the treatment of macular holes > 800 μm in diameter.

show abstract

Prospective randomized trial: outcomes of SF6 versus C3F8 in macular hole surgery

Cited by 41 publications

References 29 publications

Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) versus perfluoropropane (C3F8) tamponade and short term face-down position for macular hole repair: a randomized prospective study

Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) versus perfluoropropane (C3F8) tamponade and short term face-down position for macular hole repair: a randomized prospective study

Current Management of Macular Hole

Results of vitreous surgery with 20% C3F8/air mixture for macular holes larger than 800 μm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About