Abstract
To compare outcomes of macular hole surgery using sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) gas versus perfluoropropane (C3F8) gas for idiopathic macular hole repair. Retrospective, interventional, comparative cohort study. Institutional clinical practice. A consecutive group of patients undergoing macular hole surgery with SF6 group (38 eyes of 38 patients) and a nonconsecutive, contemporaneous, comparison group with C3F8 was used (41 eyes of 39 patients). Vitrectomy for macular hole surgery using either of two different gases for internal tamponade. Best corrected logarithm of minimal angle resolution visual acuity, anatomic closure, reoperations, development of cataract, and complications such as retinal detachment. The macular hole closure rate was similar in both groups [34/38 (90%) with SF6 gas versus 37/41 (91%) with C3F8 gas, P = 0.91]. At 6 months after macular hole surgery, best-corrected visual acuity was improved compare with baseline visual acuity by a mean of 0.32 logarithm of minimal angle resolution in the SF6 group (P = 0.045) and 0.52 logarithm of minimal angle resolution in the C3F8 group (P < 0.001). Development of vision-impairing cataract in phakic eyes was not different, but the myopic shift was greater in the C3F8 group (P = 0.016). Macular hole surgery using SF6 gas yields similar results as with C3F8 gas and may be a good option.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
