CONVENTIONAL INTERNAL LIMITING MEMBRANE PEELING VERSUS INVERTED FLAP FOR SMALL-TO-MEDIUM IDIOPATHIC MACULAR HOLE: A Randomized Trial

To compare conventional internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling versus inverted flap technique in small-to-medium idiopathic macular hole. METHODS: Eyes with ≤400 μm idiopathic macular holes were randomized into the conventional ILM peeling group (25 eyes) and inverted flap group (25 eyes). A 12-month follow-up was considered. Macular sensitivity (MS) change detected with MP-1 microperimetry was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included best-corrected visual acuity change, closure rate, anatomical findings on optical coherence tomography such as U-shape foveal contour, restoration of external limiting membrane, and ellipsoid zone. RESULTS: In both groups, MS improved throughout the follow-up. Final MS was greater in the conventional ILM peeling group compared with the inverted flap group, being 16.6 ± 2.3 dB versus 14.9 ± 2.9 dB, respectively (P = 0.026). In both groups best-corrected visual acuity improved throughout the follow-up, with a final best-corrected visual acuity of 0.19 ± 0.14 logMar (20/31 Snellen) in the conventional ILM group and 0.22 ± 0.11 logMar (20/33 Snellen) in the inverted flap group (P = 0.398). Anatomical hole closure was achieved in all cases. No difference in optical coherence tomography findings was shown between the two groups. CONCLUSION: A better final MS was found in eyes undergoing conventional ILM peeling. Inverted flap technique has disadvantages compared with conventional peeling for the treatment of small-to-medium idiopathic macular holes.