Persistent macular holes - what is the best strategy for revision?

Purpose This study aims to analyze the success rate and functional outcome after revision surgery of persistent idiopathic full-thickness macular holes in a large patient cohort and to identify the optimal tamponade strategy and the value of new adjunctive manipulation techniques for persistent macular hole (pMH) closure. Methods Retrospective, comparative, non-consecutive case series of all revisional surgeries for idiopathic pMH between 2011 and 2019 at the Eye Clinic Sulzbach were identified. Of 1163 idiopathic MH surgeries, 74 eyes of 74 patients had pMH. Of those, group 1 (n = 38) had vitrectomy with tamponade alone (20% sulfur hexafluoride gas, 15% hexafluoroethane gas, silicone oil 5000, Densiron (R)), while group 2 (n = 36) included tamponade with adjuvant manipulation (internal limiting membrane (ILM) translocation, subretinal fluid injection, epiretinal amniotic membrane, free retina graft, or autologous blood). Main statistical outcomes were anatomic closure rate, visual acuity (VA), minimum linear diameter (MLD), and base diameter (BD). Results Overall total anatomical success rate was 81.1% and mean VA improved 3.5 lines from LogMAR 1.03 +/- 0.30 to 0.68 +/- 0.38 (p < .001). Preoperative MLD or BD had no effect on total anatomic success (p = 0.074, p = 0.134, respectively). When comparing the two groups, slightly better anatomic success rates were achieved in group 1 (84.2%) compared to that in group 2 (77.8%) (p = 0.68). Final VA in group 1 (LogMAR 0.67 +/- 0.39) outperformed group 2 (LogMAR 0.86 +/- 0.38) (p = 0.03). Conclusions Revisional surgery for persistent idiopathic MH with tamponade alone had comparable anatomical closure but better VA outcomes, compared to tamponade with adjuvant manipulation.

Automated summary

The study aimed to analyze success rates and functional outcomes of revisional surgery for persistent idiopathic macular holes. Results showed that tamponade alone had comparable anatomical closure but better visual acuity outcomes compared to tamponade with adjuvant manipulation.