PURPOSE: Macular hole surgery usually involves gas tamponade which necessitates a variable period of postoperative posturing in a face-down position. A number of patients find this difficult or impossible for medical or social reasons. This study reviews our experience of macular hole surgery using silicone oil tamponade with no restriction of posturing. METHODS: Sixteen consecutive cases of macular hole (stage III/IV) surgery where silicone oil was used for tamponade were reviewed. Group A patients were unable for medical or social reasons to maintain a face-down posture and Group B patients had previous failed surgery with gas tamponade. RESULTS: Anatomical closure of hole was achieved in 81% (13/16) of all cases and 88% (7/8) of cases with no previous surgery (Group A) with a mean follow-up of 7.5 months (range 4-24 months). Mean visual improvement (log(MAR) value of visual acuity) for Group A and Group B were 0.41 and 0.03, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The success rate of macular hole surgery using silicone oil as tamponade, in cases with no previous surgery, is comparable to that achieved when gas is used as tamponade. Although good anatomical success can be achieved in cases with previous failed surgery, the visual outcome is less rewarding. Silicone oil is an alternative to gas tamponade for macular hole surgery in patients who are unable or unwilling to posture. However, it has to be borne in mind that silicone oil tamponade is not without risks.
PURPOSE: Macular hole surgery usually involves gas tamponade which necessitates a variable period of postoperative posturing in a face-down position. A number of patients find this difficult or impossible for medical or social reasons. This study reviews our experience of macular hole surgery using silicone oil tamponade with no restriction of posturing. METHODS: Sixteen consecutive cases of macular hole (stage III/IV) surgery where silicone oil was used for tamponade were reviewed. Group A patients were unable for medical or social reasons to maintain a face-down posture and Group B patients had previous failed surgery with gas tamponade. RESULTS: Anatomical closure of hole was achieved in 81% (13/16) of all cases and 88% (7/8) of cases with no previous surgery (Group A) with a mean follow-up of 7.5 months (range 4-24 months). Mean visual improvement (log(MAR) value of visual acuity) for Group A and Group B were 0.41 and 0.03, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The success rate of macular hole surgery using silicone oil as tamponade, in cases with no previous surgery, is comparable to that achieved when gas is used as tamponade. Although good anatomical success can be achieved in cases with previous failed surgery, the visual outcome is less rewarding. Silicone oil is an alternative to gas tamponade for macular hole surgery in patients who are unable or unwilling to posture. However, it has to be borne in mind that silicone oil tamponade is not without risks.