Ocriplasmin versus vitrectomy for the treatment of macular holes

Abstract

ObjectiveTo compare the anatomical and visual outcomes of patients with bilateral macular holes (MH) who have been treated with pars plana vitrectomy in one eye and intravitreal ocriplasmin in the fellow eye. DesignMulticentre, retrospective case series. ParticipantsTwenty-two eyes of 11 patients with bilateral MH treated with vitrectomy in one eye and ocriplasmin in the other were included. Patients were followed-up by 5 vitreoretinal surgeons from 3 retinal practices in Canada. MethodsAll charts were reviewed for data collection, and optical coherence tomography (OCT) scans pre- and posttreatment were evaluated. ResultsMH closed primarily in 36.4% (n = 4) of the ocriplasmin-treated eyes and in 90.9% (n = 10) of the vitrectomy-treated eyes (p = 0.031). The 4 successfully treated ocriplasmin MH were preceded by a vitreomacular traction (VMT) release. Three additional ocriplasmin-treated eyes achieved a VMT release without MH closure. All persistent MH (100%) closed with subsequent vitrectomy, with no significant difference in final best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between those who achieved MH closure with primary or secondary interventions (p = 0.073). Final BCVA improved from logMAR 0.85 ± 0.34 to 0.37 ± 0.22 (p = 0.005) in the vitrectomy eyes and from 0.56 ± 0.28 to 0.28 ± 0.16 (p = 0.009) in the ocriplasmin eyes, with no significant difference in final BCVA between treatments (p = 0.306). Postoperative ellipsoid zone disruption persisted more frequently in vitrectomy-treated eyes. ConclusionBoth procedures were associated with improved visual outcomes, but eyes initially treated with vitrectomy had a higher primary MH closure rate. On OCT, patients had more outer structural changes in vitrectomy eyes than in ocriplasmin eyes.