Comparison of Anatomical and Visual Outcomes between Idiopathic and Myopic Macular Holes Using the Internal Limiting Membrane or Inverted Internal Limiting Membrane Flap Technique.

Abstract

Purpose To compare the results of vitrectomy with those of internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling or inverted ILM flap for treating myopic or idiopathic macular hole. Methods Thirty-nine eyes of 39 patients undergoing vitrectomy with ILM peeling for macular hole (25 idiopathic and 14 myopic) and 27 eyes of 27 patients undergoing vitrectomy with inverted ILM flap (15 idiopathic and 12 myopic) were included. Outcome measures were macular hole closure by optical coherence tomography and visual acuity at 6 months. Results Closure was achieved in 25 (100%) idiopathic and 12 (86%) myopic macular holes in the ILM peeling group and in 14 (93%) idiopathic and 11 (91.77%) macular holes in the inverted ILM flap group. There were no statistically significant differences in restoration of the external limiting membrane and ellipsoid zone between the groups. Median best-corrected visual acuity (logarithm of minimal angle of resolution) at the end of follow-up was 0.22 (20/32 Snellen) in idiopathic and 0.4 (20/50) in myopic (P=0.042) patients in the ILM peeling group and 0.4 (20/50) in idiopathic and 0.4 (20/50) in myopic (P=0.652) patients in the inverted ILM flap group. Conclusion Both techniques were associated with high closure rates in myopic and idiopathic macular holes, with somewhat better visual outcomes in idiopathic cases. The small sample size may have provided insufficient power to support the superiority of one technique over the other in the two groups.