This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.
Inverted ILM flap vs. peeling technique for large macular holes yield similar outcomes
Anatomical and functional outcomes of inverted internal limiting membrane technique for the treatment of idiopathic large full-thickness macular holes were statistically similar to conventional internal limiting membrane peeling outcomes, according to a study.
The prospective, randomized, controlled trial included two groups of 30 patients with idiopathic full-thickness macular holes ranging from 600 m to 1,500 m in diameter at baseline. One group underwent the inverted ILM flap technique and the other underwent conventional ILM peeling to achieve hole closure.
At 6 months postoperatively, anatomic success, that is type 1 closure, was achieved in 21 of 30 eyes (70%) in the ILM peeling group and in 27 of 30 eyes (90%) in the inverted ILM flap group.
Patients in the ILM peeling group experienced a mean improvement of 1.4 lines of best corrected visual acuity at 6 months, compared with a mean 2.1 line improvement in the inverted ILM flap group. Mean BCVA at 6 months for patients in the ILM peeling group was logMAR 0.65, compared with logMAR 0.53 for patients in the inverted ILM flap group.
Additionally, a two-line improvement was seen in 43.3% of patients in the ILM peeling group, compared with 40% of patients in the inverted ILM flap group. – by Robert Linnehan
Disclosures: The researchers report no relevant financial disclosures.