PEDICLE TRANSPOSITION FLAP, INVERTED FLAP, FREE FLAP, AND STANDARD PEEL FOR LARGE FULL-THICKNESS MACULAR HOLES: A Comparative Study.

PURPOSE

To compare anatomical and functional outcomes of four different techniques for the treatment of large idiopathic full-thickness macular holes.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective study included 129 eyes of 126 patients with large (>500 µ m) full-thickness macular holes who presented between January 2018 and October 2022. All patients underwent 23/25 G vitrectomy and gas with standard internal limiting membrane (ILM) peel, pedicle transposition, inverted, or free flap technique. Postoperative optical coherence tomography images were assessed by two independent masked graders.

RESULTS

Mean age was 73.2 years (SD 8.4) with a median F/U of 5 months (IQR 8). The overall anatomical success rate was 81%; it was significantly lower (59%) for the standard ILM peel ( P < 0.0001). The pedicle transposition flap showed superior visual recovery compared with the free flap (+27 vs. +12 ETDRS letters, P = 0.02). At 3 months, restoration of the external limiting membrane was significantly better for the pedicle transposition flap compared with free flap and standard ILM peel ( P = 0.008 and P = 0.03) and superior to all the other techniques at 6 months ( P = 0.02, P = 0.04, and P = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Standard ILM peel alone offers inferior outcomes for the management of large full-thickness macular holes. Of the alternative ILM techniques, despite similar closure rates, foveal microstructural recovery is most complete following the pedicle transposition flap and least complete following the free flap.