Purpose: To compare the visual outcome and the rate of epiretinal membrane formation afterprimary vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling Vs no peeling for patient with maculaoff retinal detachment. Patients and methods: This was a Prospective comparative uncontrolledcase series. The study enrolled 30 eyes with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment with macula offsubjected to primary vitrectomy, and classified into 2 groups, Group A cases subjected to primaryvitrectomy without internal limiting membrane peeling and group B cases subjected to primaryvitrectomy, with internal limiting membrane peeling, Assessment of best corrected visual acuityand rate of epiretinal membrane formation after removal of silicone oil had been done. Results:This study included 30 eyes of 30 patients, 16 (53.33 %) were males and 14 (46.67 %) werefemales, the mean age of studied patients was (43.37 ± 10.40) years old. There was nostatistically significant difference in mean logMAR BCVA after silicone oil removal (1.18 ± 0.29for group A versus 0.99 ± 0.38 for group B; P = 0.12).OCT done for all cases after silicone oilremoval after 6 months and show that; epiretinal membrane with cystoid macular edema isformed in 5 cases in group A while ERM is not formed in any cases in group B (P = 0.04) , IS / OSline is interrupted in 6 cases in group A and in 3 cases (P = 0.43) as regarding foveal contour; itis lost in 5 cases and preserved in 10 cases in group A while in group B the foveal contour ispreserved in 13 cases ,lost in 1 case and flat in 1 case (P = 0.06) , while comparing the mean ofthe central foveal thickness shows no statistically significant difference 295.73±129.46 for group A versus 237.6±47.60 for group B; P = 0.66. Conclusion: There was no statistically significantdifference in mean visual acuity after silicone oil removal in both procedureshowever, theepiretinal membrane formation was absent in group B with ILM peeling in comparison to group A.