Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In Brief Purpose: The role of face-down posturing after macular hole (MH) surgery remains unclear and controversial. We evaluated the anatomical and visual outcomes of MH repair using a short duration (3 days) of prone positioning. Methods: Prospective series of 50 consecutive eyes in 50 patients with Stage 2 or Stage 3 idiopathic MHs. All eyes underwent vitrectomy MH surgery with internal limiting membrane peeling and 20% sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) gas tamponade. The procedure was combined with phacoemulsification cataract surgery in phakic eyes. Surgical outcomes, MH closure rates, complications, and postoperative visual acuity were investigated. Results: Anatomical closure of MHs was achieved in 49 (98%) of 50 eyes by 1 surgery. Postoperative logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution visual acuity decreased (i.e., improved) by 0.271 (95% confidence interval, 0.101–0.441 [P = 0.0024]). One complication of intraocular lens pupillary capture and one case of chronic cystoid macular edema were observed. There were no complications attributed to intraocular pressure fluctuations. Conclusion: Vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling and gas tamponade with SF6 followed by short-duration 3-day face-down positioning is a successful surgical intervention for Stage 2 and Stage 3 idiopathic MHs. This method possessed minimal complications and offered significant improvement in visual acuity. An interventional prospective series of 50 consecutive eyes with idiopathic macular holes underwent vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling and gas tamponade followed by short-duration 3-days face-down positioning. Successful anatomical closure was achieved in 98% of eyes by 1 surgery with minimal complications and significant improvement in visual acuity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Almeida et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: