Comparative Study between Pars Plana Vitrectomy with Internal Limiting Membrane Peel and Pars Plana Vitrectomy with Internal Limiting Membrane Flap Technique for Management of Traumatic Full Thickness Macular Holes

Table 6

Review of studies on PPV and ILM peel for traumatic macular hole.

Author	No. of eyes	Surgical technique	Anatomical closure, no. (%)	Functional outcome (mean final BCVA)
Kuhn et al. [22]	17	PPV-ILM peel; SF6	17 (100)	6 lines
Johnson et al. [14]	25	PPV-ILM peel (3 cases); C3F8; Autologous serum (12 cases)	24 (96)	≥2 lines in 84% of cases
Ou et al. [17]	4	PPV; ILM peel (4 cases); SO, air, C3F8, no tamponade (1 case)	3 (75)	Poor visual outcome
Ghoraba et al. [23]	22	PPV-ILM peel-SO (9 cases); PPV-ILM peel; C3F8 (14 cases)	81.8% primary closure, 90.9% after reoperation	3 lines (SO group), 4 lines (C3F8 group)
Current study, 2018 (first comparison between ILM peel technique and IFT)	40	PPV-ILM-C2F6; PPV-IFT-C2F6	75%; 92%	2.5 lines; 5 lines

BCVA, best-corrected visual acuity; C2F6, hexafluoroethane; C3F8, octafluoropropane; IFT, ILM flap technique; ILM, internal limiting membrane; no., number; PPV, pars plana vitrectomy; SF6, sulfur hexafluoride; SO, silicone oil.