To compare the anatomical and visual outcomes after vitrectomy with facedown (FD) or non-FD positions for treating myopic foveoschisis (MF) with foveal detachment. Prospective, randomized interventional study. 55 eyes with MF and foveal detachment that underwent vitrectomy with fovea-sparing internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling and air tamponade were randomized to either the postoperative FD (26 eyes) or non-FD (29 eyes) positions. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and optical coherence tomography were assessed at baseline, 2 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months after vitrectomy with fovea-sparing ILM peeling and air tamponade with the FD or non-FD positions. Logistic and linear regression analyses were performed to study correlations between clinical factors and foveoschisis resolution and postoperative BCVA. All patients completed ≥6 months of follow-up. MF and foveal detachment were completely resolved in 22 eyes (92%) in the FD group and 22 eyes (76%) in the non-FD group (P = 0.160). Macular hole-associated retinal detachment occurred in one eye in the FD (4%) and non-FD (3%) groups. The postoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 6 months did not differ significantly between the two groups (P = 0.495). The BCVA improved by ≥0.3 logMAR in 14 eyes (58%) in the FD group versus 17 eyes (59%) in the non-FD group (P = 0.983). Central foveal thickness (CFT) and height of foveal detachment were significantly associated with foveoschisis resolution (P = 0.045 and 0.039, respectively). Better preoperative BCVA and foveoschisis resolution were significantly associated with better postoperative BCVA (P = 0.031 and 0.003, respectively). The non-FD position appeared to be as effective as the FD position after vitrectomy with fovea-sparing ILM peeling and air tamponade for treating MF with foveal detachment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhu et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: