Abstract
Purpose: :
To compare the anatomic outcomes of pars plana vitrectomy using perfluoropropane with and without postoperative prone positioning for repair of macular holes.
Methods: :
Retrospective chart review of 57 consecutive patients who underwent pars plana vitrectomy by a single surgeon for repair of stage 2-4 macular holes using perfluoropropane with (n=37) and without postoperative prone positioning (n=20) and at least 2 months follow-up. No patient underwent postoperative augmentation of the gas bubble.
Results: :
The overall closure rate was 84.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 73%-92%). There was no statistically significant difference (p=0.25, Fisher Exact Test) between patients who maintained postoperative prone positioning (89%, 95% CI: 75-96%) and those who did not (75%, 95% CI: 53-89%). The closure rate was similar in pseudophakic (including eyes that underwent combined phacovitrectomy) and phakic eyes among patients who did not position (p=0.99). The 2 groups had no significant difference in the distribution of macular hole stage (p=0.74, Fisher Exact Test), however, internal limiting membrane peeling was performed more frequently in the prone positioning group (p=0.05, Fisher Exact Test).
Conclusions: :
In our study, macular hole closure rates were not significantly different in two groups of patients with and without prone positioning.
Keywords: macular holes • vitreoretinal surgery