Nonsupine positioning is preferred by patients over face-down positioning and provides an equivalent closure rate in 25- and 23-gauge macular hole surgery.

PURPOSE: Strict face-down positioning after macular hole surgery is very difficult for most patients. Our study seeks to determine if alleviated positioning (avoidance of supine positioning) has equivalent successful closure rates when compared with face-down positioning. A patient survey was also performed to determine patient preference. METHODS: A single-center retrospective review of patients undergoing macular hole repair with a questionnaire completed by each patient after air bubble clearance summarizing the two postoperative scenarios. Patients were asked which positioning strategy they would choose if they were having repeat surgery. Eighty-two patients undergoing pars plana vitrectomy with primary full-thickness macular hole repair were identified. Repair was performed with either 3 days of strict face-down positioning (57 of 82 patients) or with the avoidance of supine positioning (25 of 82 patients) but no required face-down positioning. RESULTS: The anatomical success rates were similar between the 2 groups with 96% of final hole closure (55/57) in the face-down group versus 100% (25/25) in the nonsupine group. Macular hole size appeared to be similar between the 2 groups (a mean of 408 µm in face-down group vs. that of 483 µm in nonsupine group, with a median of 400 in both groups). Patient preference was in favor of less stringent nonsupine postoperative requirements. Although 100% (25/25) of the nonsupine group would opt for the same strategy with repeat surgery, only 51% (29/57) of the face-down group would opt for face-down positioning with repeat surgery (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates equivalent closure rates among the patients who were assigned nonsupine versus face-down positioning postoperatively for macular hole repair, and that most patients would prefer to avoid strict face-down positioning if reoperated.

Visual outcome and risk factors for light perception and no light perception vision after vitrectomy for diabetic retinopathy.

PURPOSE: To assess the visual outcome following vitrectomy for diabetic retinopathy compared with previous studies; to evaluate risk factors for light perception (LP) and no light perception (NLP) vision after diabetic vitrectomy. DESIGN: Retrospective medical record review. METHODS: The charts of 100 consecutive patients who underwent vitrectomy for proliferative diabetic retinopathy between November 1, 1997, and November 30, 1998, were reviewed. Surgical technique included standard pars plana vitrectomy with combination of delamination and segmentation of gliotic tractional membranes using bimanual techniques. All patients had post-operative follow-up of at least 12 months. Several factors were analyzed for their effect on poor visual outcome (LP and NLP) using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Post-vitrectomy, 73% of diabetic patients had stable or improved vision; 16% had worsened but functional vision, defined as worse but still >or= 20/400; 4% had worsened but ambulatory vision, defined as worse but still count fingers (CF) or hand motion (HM); and 7% had poor visual outcome, LP or NLP. Resultant visual acuity was >or=20/40 in 38% of patients, 20/50 to 20/100 in 34%, 20/120 to CF in 18%, HM in 3%, LP in 4%, and NLP in 3%. Risk factors for eyes with LP and NLP vision included pre-operative iris neovascularization (INV), P = .05, post-operative INV, P = .02, post-operative macular ischemia, P = .0001, and post-operative vitreous hemorrhage (VH), P = .02. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-operative and post-operative INV, post-operative macular ischemia, and post-operative VH appear to be risk factors for LP and NLP vision following diabetic vitrectomy, whereas overall improvements in surgical technique and visual outcome continue to be reported.