Retrospective study demonstrates air tamponade with platelet-rich plasma yields equivalent macular hole closure with shorter tamponade duration, suggesting faster recovery with less discomfort.
Vitrectomy, combined with internal limiting membrane peeling and gas tamponade, is the gold standard for treating full-thickness macular holes (FTMH). However, prolonged intraocular tamponade duration often causes patient discomfort and delays visual recovery, necessitating the need for alternative approaches. Autologous platelet-rich plasma (APRP) injection, an adjunctive therapy, improves macular hole closure. This study compared surgical outcomes using APRP injection with air tamponade (APRP + Air group) versus the conventional perfluoropropane (C 3 F 8 ) gas tamponade (Gas group). We retrospectively analyzed 61 eyes from 61 patients diagnosed with idiopathic FTMH (base diameter < 1300 μm), grouped based on patient treatment choice (APRP + Air group, n = 23; Gas group, n = 38). The hole closure rate, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), optical coherence tomography findings and tamponade duration were analyzed at baseline and 1, 3 months after surgery in both groups. Hole closure rate did not differ significantly between groups during follow-up (APRP + Air group: 100%, Gas group: 97.4%). Postoperative BCVA and OCT findings did not differ significantly between groups. The mean tamponade duration was significantly shorter in the APRP + Air group (7.09 ± 1.16 days) than the Gas group (28.84 ± 4.15 days; p < 0.001). Macular hole surgery using APRP + Air tamponade demonstrated favorable short-term results in anatomical closure rates and BCVA, with no statistically significant difference compared to C 3 F 8 tamponade, while offering the advantage of a significantly shorter postoperative tamponade duration. Therefore, this procedure may provide a suitable option for patients with idiopathic full-thickness macular holes who want to reduce discomfort and achieve quicker postoperative recovery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: