Comparative Study between Pars Plana Vitrectomy with Internal Limiting Membrane Peel and Pars Plana Vitrectomy with Internal Limiting Membrane Flap Technique for Management of Traumatic Full Thickness Macular Holes

Table 7

Review of studies on PPV and ILM peel versus PPV and inverted ILM flap for different types of macular holes.

Author	Macular hole type	Surgical technique	No. of eyes	Anatomical closure (%)	Functional outcome (mean final BCVA)
Michalewska et al. [24]	Idiopathic	PPV, ILM peel, air	51	88%	(Pre-op 0.12)–(post-op 0.17); Snellen
		PPV, inverted ILM flap, air	50	98%	(Pre-op 0.07)–(post-op 0.2); Snellen
Chen et al. [25]	Idiopathic	PPV, inverted ILM flap, C3F8	8	100%	(Pre-op 1.3)–(post-op 0.6); logMAR
Sasaki et al. [26]	Macular hole-associated retinal detachment	PPV, ILM peel	9	55.5%	(Pre-op 1.00)–(post-op 1.02); logMAR
		PPV, inverted ILM flap	6	100%	(Pre-op 1.04)–(post-op 0.6); logMAR
		C3F8 or SF6
Mete et al. [27]	Myopic	PPV, ILM peel, SF6	36	61%	(Pre-op 0.6) –(post-op 0.58); logMAR
		PPV, inverted ILM flap, SF6	34	94%	(Pre-op 0.7)–(post-op 0.39); logMAR
Casini et al. [28]	Idiopathic	PPV, inverted ILM flap, SF6	41	97.6%	(Pre-op 20/120)–(Post-op 20/30); Snellen
		PPV, modified inverted ILM flap, SF6	40	97.5%	(Pre-op 20/132)–(Post-op 20/35); Snellen
Kannan et al. [29]	Idiopathic	PPV, ILM peel, SF6	30	70%	1.4 lines
		PPV, inverted ILM flap, SF6	30	90%	2.1 lines
Rizzo et al. [30]	Idiopathic, myopic	PPV, ILM peel	300	78.75%	(Pre-op 0.77)–(post-op 0.52); logMAR
		PPV, inverted ILM flap	320	91.93%	(Pre-op 0.74)–(post-op 0.43); logMAR
		C3F8 or SF6
Current study, 2018	Traumatic	PPV, ILM, C2F6	28	75%	2.5 lines
		PPV, IFT, C2F6	12	92%	5 lines

BCVA, best-corrected visual acuity; C2F6, hexafluoroethane; C3F8, octafluoropropane; IFT, ILM flap technique; ILM, internal limiting membrane; logMAR, logarithm of minimum angle of resolution; no., number; PPV, pars plana vitrectomy; SF6, sulfur hexafluoride.