The inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique is not recommended for the treatment of large macular holes smaller than 650 µm.

Abstract

To compare the anatomical and functional outcomes of the inverted flap technique versus conventional internal limited membrane (ILM) peeling in large idiopathic full-thickness macular holes (FTMHs) smaller than 650 µm. Retrospective comparative study. Patients with large idiopathic MHs smaller than 650 µm who underwent either the inverted flap technique (IFT) or ILM peeling were investigated. The main outcomes included the MH closure rate, recovery rates of the external limiting membrane (ELM) and ellipsoid zone (EZ) and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. Sixty-nine eyes of 69 patients who underwent the IFT (n = 32, group A) or ILM peeling (n = 37, group B) were included. In both groups, a significant BCVA improvement was acquired throughout the follow-up period. The mean BCVA increased at each follow-up visit in both groups (P<.001). However, the IFT group showed poorer visual results than the ILM peeling group at all time points (P=0.039, 0.005, 0.006). The ELM recovery rate in the ILM peeling group (78.3%, 29/37 eyes) was higher than that in the IFT group (53.1%, 17/32 eyes) at six months after surgery (p = 0.079). The IFT resulted in poorer ELM and visual recovery than ILM peeling, suggesting that the IFT is not a suitable option for repairing large MHs < 650 µm.