Macular hole Delphi consensus statement (MHOST).

PURPOSE: To derive a Delphi method-based consensus for the surgical management of Full Thickness Macular Hole (FTMH) and Lamellar Macular Hole (LMH). METHODS: 37 expert VR surgeons from 21 mainly European countries participated in Delphi method-based questionnaire for diagnosis and treatment of FTMHs and LMHs. RESULTS: A total of 36 items were rated in round 1 by 37 participants, of which 10 items achieved consensus: intraoperative verification of PVD; clinical superiority of OCT-based FTMH classification; practical ineffectiveness of ocriplasmin; circular 360° ILM peeling for small macular holes; use of regular surgical technique for the size of the hole in concomitant retinal detachment; performing complete vitrectomy; SF6 gas as preferred tamponade; cataract surgery if crystalline lens is mildly/moderately opaque; removal of both ILM and LHEP in LMH surgery. In round 2, 18 items with moderate consensus (45-70% agreement) in round 1 were rated by 35 participants. Final consensus was reached in 35% of questions related to both diagnosis and surgical procedures. CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi study provides valuable information about the consensus/disagreement on different scenarios encountered during FTMH and LMH management as a guide tosurgical decision-making. High rate of disagreement and/or variable approaches still exist for treating such relatively common conditions.

Air versus Sulfur Hexafluoride Gas Tamponade for Small and Medium-Sized Macular Holes: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial.

PURPOSE: To investigate whether air tamponade is noninferior to sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) gas tamponade for small (≤ 250 µm) and medium-sized (> 250 µm and ≤ 400 µm) macular holes (MHs). DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized controlled, noninferiority trial. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years undergoing surgery for primary MHs of ≤ 400 µm in diameter. METHODS: The patients in both groups underwent conventional pars plana vitrectomy with peeling of the internal limiting membrane. At the end of the surgery, the patients were randomized to receive either air or SF6 gas tamponades, stratified by MH size. Postoperatively, the patients followed a nonsupine positioning regimen for 3 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was the MH closure rate after a single surgery, confirmed by OCT after 2 to 8 weeks. The noninferiority margin was set at a 10-percentage-point difference in the closure rate. RESULTS: In total, 150 patients were included (75 in each group). In the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, 65 of 75 patients in the air group achieved primary closure. All 75 MHs in the SF6 group closed after a single surgery. Six patients were excluded from the per-protocol (PP) analysis. In the PP analysis, 63 of 70 patients in the air group and all 74 patients in the SF6 group achieved MH closure after a single surgery, resulting in closure rates of 90% (95% confidence interval [CI], 79.9%-95.5%) and 100% (95% CI, 93.9%-100%), respectively. For the difference in closure rates, the lower bound of a 2-sided 95% CI exceeded the noninferiority margin of 10% in both ITT and PP analyses. In the subgroups of small MHs, all 20 patients in the air group and all 28 patients in the SF6 group achieved primary closure. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective randomized controlled trial proved that air tamponade is inferior to SF6 tamponade for MHs of ≤ 400 µm in diameter.

Primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment - surgical methods and anatomical outcome.

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the anatomical success of surgical management of primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) and to compare the anatomical outcomes from different surgical techniques. METHODS: During 2012, 517 consecutive eyes (514 patients) were operated by 11 surgeons at the Department of Ophthalmology, Oslo University Hospital. Patient records were retrospectively analysed with no exclusions. Main outcome measures were primary and final anatomical success. Primary anatomical success was defined as retinal reattachment 6 months after primary surgery with reoperations excluded. Final anatomical success was defined as retinal reattachment 6 months after primary surgery with reoperations included. RESULTS: Incidence of RRD was 18.6 eyes per 100 000 person-years. The macula was detached in 50.5% of the eyes at baseline. Of 517 operated eyes, 317 (61.3%) underwent pars plana vitrectomy (PPV), 23 (4.5%) pars plana vitrectomy together with a scleral buckle (PPV-SB), 175 (33.9%) scleral buckle (SB) surgery and two (0.4%) pneumatic retinopexy (PR). Primary anatomical success was 89.0% in the PPV group, 87.0% in the PPV-SB group and 85.7% in the SB group. Final anatomical success was 98.1% in the PPV group, 100% in the PPV-SB group and 99.4% in the SB group. Factors which were correlated to the redetachment were detachment of more than 6 clock hours (p = 0.003) and visual acuity (VA) on Snellen chart <0.5 (p = 0.02) at baseline. CONCLUSION: This study showed no significant differences in the surgical success rates in the treatment of RRD between pars plana vitrectomy, scleral buckle or the combined procedure of vitrectomy and buckle. Factors which were found to be correlated to the redetachment of the retina were large detachment and low VA.

Efficacy of ranibizumab in patients with macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion: results from the sham-controlled ROCC study.

PURPOSE: The ROCC study (randomized study comparing ranibizumab to sham in patients with macular edema secondary to central Retinal vein OCClusion [CRVO]) evaluated the short-term effect of intravitreal ranibizumab injections on best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and macular edema. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trial. METHODS: In this 6-month trial, 32 patients with macular edema secondary to CRVO were randomized to receive monthly intravitreal ranibizumab (0.5 mg/0.05 mL) or sham injections for 3 consecutive months. If macular edema persisted, patients received further monthly injections. Primary outcome measures were BCVA and central macular thickness (CMT) at 6 months. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients completed the study. After 3 months, BCVA improved by a mean +/- standard deviation (SD) of 16 +/- 14 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters in the ranibizumab group (n = 15), compared with a mean loss of 5 +/- 15 ETDRS letters in the sham group (n = 14; P = .001). The mean +/- SD change in CMT was -411 +/- 200 microm in the ranibizumab group and -86 +/- 165 microm with sham (P < .001). At 6 months, the mean +/- SD change in BCVA was 12 +/- 20 ETDRS letters in the ranibizumab group compared with -1 +/- 17 ETDRS letters in the sham group (P = .067). The mean +/- SD change in CMT was -304 +/- 194 microm with ranibizumab and -151 +/- 205 microm with sham (P = .05). Twelve patients (80%) in the ranibizumab group required more than 3 initial injections; mean +/- SD number of injections was 4.3 +/- 0.9 during the study. CONCLUSION: Monthly ranibizumab significantly increased BCVA and decreased macular edema, compared with sham, in patients with CRVO. Repeated consecutive injections are necessary to maintain initial positive results.