| Literature DB >> 27847599 |
Fatma Dihowm1, Mathew MacCumber2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the results of 20, 23, 25 gauge pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with two different gas tamponades for idiopathic macular hole (MH) in a multi-surgeon vitroretinal practice.Entities:
Keywords: 20; 23; 25 gauge vitrectomy; Idiopathic macular hole; Internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling; Perfluoropropane (C3F8); Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)
Year: 2015 PMID: 27847599 PMCID: PMC5066517 DOI: 10.1186/s40942-015-0007-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Retina Vitreous ISSN: 2056-9920
Baseline patients demographics for different gauge groups
| Parameter | All eyes, n=142 | 20 Gauge, n=37 | 23 Gauge, n=55 | 25 Gauge, n=50 | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years | |||||
| Mean ±SD | 67.8±8.5 | 69±8.6 | 67±8.3 | 66.8±8.5 | 0.263a |
| Range | 46-87 | 47-87 | 47-86 | 46-86 | |
| Gender, n, % | |||||
| Female | 98 (69 %) | 27 (73 %) | 38 (69.1 %) | 33 (66 %) | 0.785b |
| Male | 44 (31 %) | 10 (27 %) | 17 (30.9 %) | 17 (34 %) | |
| Preoperative VA | |||||
| Median (logMAR) | 0.70 | 0.80 | 0.70 | 0.60 | 0.237c |
| 0.18-2.30 | 0.30-2.30 | 0.18-1.82 | 0.40-1.70 | ||
| Range (logMAR) | |||||
| Lens Status, n, % | 116 (81.7 %) | 27 (73 %) | 48 (87.3 %) | 41 (82 %) | 0.229b |
| Phakic | 26 (18.3 %) | 10 (27 %) | 7 (12.7 %) | 9 (18 %) | |
| Pseudophakic | |||||
| Stage of MH, n, % | 47 (33.1 %) | 9 (24.3 %) | 22 (40 %) | 16 (32 %) | |
| Stage 2 | 54 (38 %) | 18 (48.6 %) | 19 (34.5 %) | 17 (34 %) | 0.226b |
| Stage 3 | 36 (25.4 %) | 8 (21.6 %) | 11 (20 %) | 17 (34 %) | |
| Stage 4 | |||||
| ICG | 137 (96.5 %) | 52 (94.5 %) | 52 (94.5 %) | 49 (98 %) | 0.760b |
Abbreviation: n number, % percent
aANOVA
bChi-square test
cKruskal-Wallis test
Comparison in VA improvement postoperative 6 months and 1 year, and 1 year and 2 years in each gauge
| Gauge | VA at 6 months | VA at 1 year | P value | VA at 1 year | VA at 2 years | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20 gauge | 20/110 | 20/60 | 0.011 | 20/60 | 20/50 | 0.188 |
| 23 gauge | 20/80 | 20/69 | 0.864 | 20/69 | 20/55 | 0.003 |
| 25 gauge | 20/76 | 20/40 | 0.002 | 20/ 40 | 20/40 | 0.268 |
Fig. 1Graph showing preoperative and postoperative logarithm of minimal angle of resolution (logMAR) visual acuity (median) in 20, 23, or 25 gauge vitrectomy systems
Fig. 2Graph showing Lens Status at 1 and 2 years postoperatively in eyes treated with 20, 23, or 25 gauge PPV systems
Fig. 3Graph showing Macular hole status in different types of PPV systems after single surgery
Final VA ranges for different PPV systems in patients who completed 2 years follow-up
| VA | 20 Gauge | 23 Gauge | 25 Gauge |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20/40 or better | 35.7 % | 44.1 % | 72.2 % |
| 20/41 to 20/63 | 32.1 % | 14.7 % | 13.8 % |
| 20/64 to 20/80 | 10.7 % | 14.7 % | 5.5 % |
| Worse than 20/80 | 21.4 % | 26.4 % | 8.3 % |
Baseline patients demographics for different gas groups
| Parameter | C3F8, n= 75 | SF6, n= 67 | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years | |||
| Mean ±SD | 69.8±8.3 | 65.6±8.2 | 0.003a |
| Range | 47-87 | 46-86 | |
| Gender, n, % | |||
| Female | 49/ 65.3 % | 49/73.1 % | 0.316c |
| Male | 26/34.7 % | 18/26.9 % | |
| Preoperative VA | |||
| Median (logMAR) | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.381b |
| Range (logMAR) | 0.30-2.30 | 0.18-1.82 | |
| Lens Status, n, % | |||
| Phakic | 54/75 % | 62/92.5 % | 0.002c |
| Pseudophakic | 12/28 % | 5/7.5 % | |
| Stage of MH, n, % | |||
| Stage 2 | 24/32 % | 23/34 % | |
| Stage 3 | 34/46 % | 20/30 % | 0.022c |
| Stage 4 | 12/16 % | 24/36 % | |
| ICG | 75/100 % | 62/92.5 % | 0.055c |
| Duration face-down | |||
| positioning, Mean by Day | 9.1 | 8.5 | 0.126a |
Abbreviation: n number, % percent
aT-test
bMann-Whitney U test
cChi-square test and Fisher’s exact test
Fig. 4Graph showing macular hole closure rate and type of intraocular tamponade. The overall percentage of eyes with successful MH closure was higher in the eyes treated with Perfluoropropane (C3F8) compared with eyes treated with Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)
Fig. 5Graph showing macular hole closure and type of intraocular tamponade with different concentrations of gas. The percentage of eyes with successful MH closure was higher in the eyes treated with Perfluoropropane (C3F8) 12-14 %, 15-16 %, and 22-26 % Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) compared with eyes treated with Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) at 18-20 %