Comparison of Techniques: Inverted Flap and Conventional Internal Limiting Membrane

Czech version

Authors: Vladimír Urana ^1,2; Michal Hrevuš ^1,2; Jan Havrda ^1,2; Jiří Řehák ^1,2; Klára Marešová ^1,2; Marta Karhanová ^1,2
Authors‘ workplace: Fakultní nemocnice Olomouc, Oční klinika ¹; Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci, Lékařská fakulta, Oční klinika ²
Published in: Čes. a slov. Oftal., 80, 2024, No. Ahead of print, p. 1-6
Category: Original Article
doi: https://doi.org/10.31348/2024/31

Overview

Aim: To compare functional and anatomical outcomes between the inverted flap technique and conventional removal of the internal limiting membrane (ILM) in the surgical management of idiopathic macular hole (IMH).

Material and methods: We retrospectively evaluated the anatomical and functional results in 67 eyes of 65 patients operated on for IMH. The patients were operated on either using the conventional ILM peeling technique (first group) or with the inverted ILM flap technique (second group). 43 eyes of 41 patients were included in the first group, 24 eyes of 24 patients in the second group. We indicated for surgery only patients with IMH stage 2–4 according to the Gasse classification. Best corrected visual acuity (VA) was always determined before and two months after surgery. Furthermore, a comparison of both techniques was made according to the average letter gain after surgery, and the effect of surgery was evaluated using OCT with regard to whether IMH closure succeeded. For both techniques, 25G PPV with SF6 tamponade was performed.

Results: Hole closure took place in 41 eyes with conventional ILM removal. In one eye, the hole did not close even after reoperation with the same technique. Median ETDRS letter gain was 7.0. VA remained the same in 2 eyes (4.7%), worsened in 7 cases (16.2%), and improved in all other cases (79.0%). In 16 eyes (37.2%), VA improved by 2 or more lines of ETDRS charts. Using the inverted flap technique, the hole was closed in all 24 monitored eyes. Median ETDRS letter gain was 9.5. VA remained the same in 2 eyes (8.3%), worsened in 2 cases (8.3%), and improved in all other cases (83.3%). In 12 eyes (50.0%), VA improved by 2 or more lines of ETDRS charts. There were no serious complications intraoperatively or postoperatively.

Conclusion: Our study demonstrated the safety and efficacy of both methods. Although the results were not statistically significant, the inverted flap technique recorded a greater ETDRS letter gain (9.5 vs. 7.0) and proportion of closed holes (100% vs. 95.3%) compared to the conventional ILM peeling technique in our set of eyes.

Keywords:

macular hole – 25-Gauge vitrectomy – MLI peeling – inverted flap technique – trypan blue – gas tamponade

Sources

McCannel CA, Ensminger JL, Diehl NN, Hodge DN. Population-based incidence of macular holes. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(7):1366-1369. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.01.052
Staropoli PC, Moolani HV, Elhusseiny AM, Flynn HW Jr, Smiddy WE. Rates of Fellow Eye Macular Hole Development During Long Term Follow-Up. Clin Ophthalmol. 2023;17:47-52. Published 2023 Jan 5. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S394933
Philippakis E, Astroz P, Tadayoni R, Gaudric A. Incidence of Macular Holes in the Fellow Eye without Vitreomacular Detachment at Baseline. Ophthalmologica. 2018;240(3):135-142. doi:10.1159/000488956
Rahimy E, McCannel CA. Impact of internal limiting membrane peeling on macular hole reopening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Retina. 2016;36(4):679-687. doi:10.1097/ IAE.0000000000000782
Lai MM, Williams GA. Anatomical and visual outcomes of idiopathic macular hole surgery with internal limiting membrane removal using low-concentration indocyanine green. Retina. 2007;27(4):477-482. doi:10.1097/01.iae.0000247166.11120.21
Veith M, Straňák Z, Penčák M, Studený P. Chirurgické řešení idiopatické makulární díry 25-gauge pars plana vitrektomií s peelingem vnitřní limitující membrány asistované briliantovou modří a plynovou tamponádou [Surgical Treatment of the Idiopathic Macular Hole by Means of 25-Gauge Pars Plana Vitrectomy with the Peeling of the Internal Limiting Membrane Assisted by Brilliant Blue and Gas Tamponade]. Cesk Slov Oftalmol. 2015;71(3):170-174. Czech.
Ullrich S, Haritoglou C, Gass C, Schaumberger M, Ulbig MW, Kampik A. Macular hole size as a prognostic factor in macular hole surgery. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86(4):390-393. doi:10.1136/ bjo.86.4.390
Michalewska Z, Michalewski J, Adelman RA, Nawrocki J. Inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique for large macular holes. Ophthalmology. 2010;117(10):2018-2025. doi:10.1016/j. ophtha.2010.02.011
Khodani M, Bansal P, Narayanan R, Chhablani J. Inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique for very large macular hole. Int J Ophthalmol. 2016;9(8):1230-1232. Published 2016 Aug 18. doi:10.18240/ijo.2016.08.22
Manasa S, Kakkar P, Kumar A, Chandra P, Kumar V, Ravani R. Comparative Evaluation of Standard ILM Peel With Inverted ILM Flap Technique In Large Macular Holes: A Prospective, Randomized Study. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2018;49(4):236-240. doi:10.3928/23258160-20180329-04
Velez-Montoya R, Ramirez-Estudillo JA, Sjoholm-Gomez de Liano C, et al. Inverted ILM flap, free ILM flap and conventional ILM peeling for large macular holes. Int J Retina Vitreous. 2018;4:8. Published 2018 Feb 19. doi:10.1186/s40942-018-0111-5
Ventre L, Fallico M, Longo A, et al. Conventional internal limiting membrane peeling versus inverted flap for small-to-medium idiopathic macular hole: A Randomized Trial. Retina. 2022;42(12):22512257. doi:10.1097/IAE.0000000000003622
Li P, Li L, Wu J. Inverted Internal Limiting Membrane Flap versus Internal Limiting Membrane Peeling for <400 μm Macular Hole: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. Ophthalmic Res. 2023;66(1):1342-1352. doi:10.1159/000534873
Kelly NE, Wendel RT. Vitreous surgery for idiopathic macular holes. Results of a pilot study. Arch Ophthalmol. 1991;109(5):654-659. doi:10.1001/archopht.1991.01080050068031
Park DW, Sipperley JO, Sneed SR, Dugel PU, Jacobsen J. Macular hole surgery with internal-limiting membrane peeling and intravitreous air. Ophthalmology. 1999;106(7):1392-1398. doi:10.1016/ S0161-6420(99)00730-7
Jančo L, Vida R, Bartoš M, Villémová K. Chirurgická liečba idiopatickej diery makuly naše skúsenosti [Surgical Treatment of the Idiopatic Macular Hole – our Experience]. Cesk Slov Oftalmol. 2013;69(3):102-105. Slovak.
Kolář P, Vlková E. Dlouhodobé výsledky chirurgického řešení idiopatické makulární díry s peelingem vnitřní limitující membrány [The Long-Term Results of Surgical Treatment of the Idiopathic Macular Hole with the Peeling of the Internal Limiting Membrane]. Cesk Slov Oftalmol. 2006;62(1):34-41. Czech.
Korda V, Dusová J, Studnička J, Rencová E, Hejcmanová D. Chirurgické řešení makulární díry [Treatment of Pediatric Traumatic Macular Holes]. Cesk Slov Oftalmol. 2005;61(5):316-320. Czech.
Almony A, Nudleman E, Shah GK, et al. Techniques, rationale, and outcomes of internal limiting membrane peeling. Retina. 2012;32(5):877-891. doi:10.1097/IAE.0b013e318227ab39
Morescalchi F, Costagliola C, Gambicorti E, Duse S, Romano MR, Semeraro F. Controversies over the role of internal limiting membrane peeling during vitrectomy in macular hole surgery. Surv Ophthalmol. 2017;62(1):58-69. doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2016.07.003
Kase S, Saito W, Mori S, et al. Clinical and histological evaluation of large macular hole surgery using the inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique. Clin Ophthalmol. 2016;11:9-14. Published 2016 Dec 16. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S119762
Ito Y, Terasaki H, Takahashi A, Yamakoshi T, Kondo M, Nakamura M. Dissociated optic nerve fiber layer appearance after internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic macular holes. Ophthalmology. 2005;112(8):1415-1420. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.02.023
Pak KY, Park KH, Kim KH, et al. Topographic changes of the macula after closure of idiopathic macular hole. Retina. 2017;37(4):667672. doi:10.1097/IAE.0000000000001251
Karkanová M, Vlková E, Došková H, Kolář P. Vliv operace idiopatické makulární díry s peelingem MLI a plynnou tamponádou na elektrickou funkci sítnice [The Influence of the Idiopathic Macular Hole (IMH) Surgery with the ILM Peeling and Gas Tamponade on the Electrical Function of the Retina]. Cesk Slov Oftalmol. 2010;66(2):84-88. Czech.
Morizane Y, Shiraga F, Kimura S, et al. Autologous transplantation of the internal limiting membrane for refractory macular holes. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;157(4):861-869.e1. doi:10.1016/j. ajo.2013.12.028
Modi A, Giridhar A, Gopalakrishnan M. Sulfurhexafluoride (SF6) versus perfluoropropane (C3F8) gas as tamponade in macular hole surgery. Retina. 2017;37(2):283-290. doi:10.1097/ IAE.0000000000001124
Almeida DRP, Wong J, Belliveau M, Rayat J, Gale J. Anatomical and visual outcomes of macular hole surgery with short-duration 3-day face-down positioning. Retina, 2012 Mar;32(3):506-510.
Benson WE, Cruickshanks KC, Fong DS et al. Surgical management of macular holes: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology, 2001;108(7):1328-1335.
de Bustros S. Vitrectomy for prevention of macular holes. Results of a randomized multicenter clinical trial. Vitrectomy for Prevention of Macular Hole Study Group. Ophthalmology. 1994;101(6):10551060. doi:10.1016/s0161-6420(94)31218-8