Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Macular buckling versus vitrectomy on macular hole associated macular detachment in eyes with high myopia: a randomised trial
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Macular buckling versus vitrectomy on macular hole associated macular detachment in eyes with high myopia: a randomised trial
Do you wish to request the book?
Macular buckling versus vitrectomy on macular hole associated macular detachment in eyes with high myopia: a randomised trial
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Macular buckling versus vitrectomy on macular hole associated macular detachment in eyes with high myopia: a randomised trial
2022
Overview
AimTo compare the efficacy of macular buckling (MB) and pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) for full-thickness macular holes (FTMH) and associated macular detachment (MD) in highly myopic eyes.MethodsProspective interventional case series of eyes undergoing PPV or MB for FTMH and MD.Main outcome measuresBest-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at postoperative month 24. Other measured outcomes include the initial surgical success rate, macular hole closure rate and the progression of myopic maculopathy.ResultsA total of 53 eyes from 53 participants were included in this study (26 participants receiving MB and 27 participants receiving PPV), and finally 49 eyes from 49 participants (25 participants in the MB group and 24 participants in the PPV group) were analysed. At postoperative month 24, the BCVA had improved significantly in those that underwent either MB (p<0.001) or PPV (p=0.04). The difference between the groups was not significant (p=0.653). The surgical failure rate after the primary treatment was significantly higher in the PPV group than the MB group (25.00% vs 4.00%, respectively; p=0.04). The macular closure rate was higher in the MB group compared with the PPV group, but the difference was not statistically significant (64.00% vs 58.33%, respectively; p=0.45). Myopic maculopathy development may be more severe following PPV than following MB surgery.ConclusionPatients with high myopia obtained anatomical and functional improvements from either MB or PPV. However, MB achieved a significantly higher success rate in retinal reattachment compared with PPV.Trial registration number NCT03433547.
Publisher
BMJ Publishing Group Ltd,BMJ Publishing Group LTD,BMJ Publishing Group
