Secondary Logo

Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Share this article on:

ANATOMICAL AND VISUAL OUTCOMES OF INVERTED INTERNAL LIMITING MEMBRANE FLAP TECHNIQUE VERSUS INTERNAL LIMITING MEMBRANE PEELING IN MYOPIC MACULAR HOLE WITHOUT RETINAL DETACHMENT

A Preliminary Retrospective Study

Bové Álvarez, María, MD*; Sabaté, Sergi, MD, PhD; Gómez-Resa, María, MD, PhD; García-Arumí, José, MD, PhD*,§

doi: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000002368
Original Study: PDF Only

Purpose: To compare the results of vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling and inverted ILM flap for treating myopic macular hole without retinal detachment.

Methods: Twenty-eight eyes of 28 patients undergoing vitrectomy with either ILM peeling (n = 16) or inverted ILM flap technique (n = 12) were included. Outcomes were myopic macular hole closure by optical coherence tomography and visual acuity at 6 months and at the end of follow-up.

Results: Closure of myopic macular hole was achieved in 13 eyes (81.2%) of the ILM peeling group and in 11 eyes (91.7%) of the inverted ILM flap group. The median length of follow-up was 18 months in the peeling group and 10.3 in the inverted group. There were not statistically significant differences between restoration of the external limiting membrane, external limiting membrane and ellipsoid zone, and none of both layers between the two groups. The median best-corrected visual acuity (logarithm of minimal angle of resolution) at the end of follow-up was 0.25 (20/35 Snellen) in the peeling group and 0.4 (20/50) in the inverted group (P = 0.027).

Conclusion: Both techniques were associated with high closure rates of myopic macular hole but the small sample size and the retrospective design prevents any claims of superiority of one technique over the other.

In patients with myopic macular hole without retinal detachment, both the internal limiting membrane flap technique and the internal limiting membrane peeling technique were associated with high anatomical closure rates. The limited number of cases and the retrospective design prevent any claims of superiority of one technique over the other.

*Instituto de Microcirugía Ocular (IMO), Barcelona, Spain;

Service of Anesthesiology, Fundació Puigvert, Barcelona, Spain;

Service of Ophthalmology, Hospital Universitario Son Espases, Palma de Mallorca, Spain; and

§Service of Ophthalmology, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.

Reprint requests: José García-Arumí, MD, PhD, Instituto de Microcirugía Ocular (IMO), C/Josep María Lladó 3, E-08035 Barcelona, Spain; e-mail: jgarcia.arumi@gmail.com

None of the authors has any financial/conflicting interests to disclose.

© 2018 by Ophthalmic Communications Society, Inc.