You Hyun Lee1, Soo Jin Lee1, Ji Hye Jang1, Yu Cheol Kim2. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Keimyung University School of Medicine, 1095 Dalgubeol-daero, Dalseo-gu, Daegu, 42601, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Keimyung University School of Medicine, 1095 Dalgubeol-daero, Dalseo-gu, Daegu, 42601, Republic of Korea. eyedr@dsmc.or.kr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the prognostic factors associated with the success of fluid-gas exchange in patients who had undergone failed primary idiopathic macular hole (IMH) surgery. METHODS: In total, 19 eyes of 19 patients with failed IMH surgery who then underwent fluid-gas exchange were included. Of those, 18 eyes had macular hole (MH) closure (successful, 15 eyes; unsuccessful, 3 eyes). Demographics, pre-operative characteristics, and pre-procedural characteristics were assessed. The patients were divided into successful (U or V-type closure) and unsuccessful groups (W-type or unclosed), following fluid-gas exchange. One eye was unclosed after fluid-gas exchange; therefore, this patient underwent additional vitrectomy for MH closure (unsuccessful). RESULTS: The outcomes of the fluid-gas exchange were categorized as unclosed or as U-type, V-type, or W-type closure. None of the patients experienced complications after the procedure. The successful group showed a significantly lower pre-operative and pre-procedural minimum diameter, base diameter, and macular hole volume, and higher pre-operative and pre-procedural macular hole index, hole form factor, and tractional hole index values. Moreover, a better visual prognosis was observed in the successful group. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that indices predicting favorable results of primary surgery for IMH are useful for predicting the success of fluid-gas exchange in patients with failed primary MH surgery.
PURPOSE: This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the prognostic factors associated with the success of fluid-gas exchange in patients who had undergone failed primary idiopathic macular hole (IMH) surgery. METHODS: In total, 19 eyes of 19 patients with failed IMH surgery who then underwent fluid-gas exchange were included. Of those, 18 eyes had macular hole (MH) closure (successful, 15 eyes; unsuccessful, 3 eyes). Demographics, pre-operative characteristics, and pre-procedural characteristics were assessed. The patients were divided into successful (U or V-type closure) and unsuccessful groups (W-type or unclosed), following fluid-gas exchange. One eye was unclosed after fluid-gas exchange; therefore, this patient underwent additional vitrectomy for MH closure (unsuccessful). RESULTS: The outcomes of the fluid-gas exchange were categorized as unclosed or as U-type, V-type, or W-type closure. None of the patients experienced complications after the procedure. The successful group showed a significantly lower pre-operative and pre-procedural minimum diameter, base diameter, and macular hole volume, and higher pre-operative and pre-procedural macular hole index, hole form factor, and tractional hole index values. Moreover, a better visual prognosis was observed in the successful group. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that indices predicting favorable results of primary surgery for IMH are useful for predicting the success of fluid-gas exchange in patients with failed primary MH surgery.