Pedicle transposition flap, inverted flap, free flap, and standard peel for large full thickness macular holes: a comparative study.

Abstract

To compare anatomical and functional outcomes of four different techniques for the treatment of large idiopathic full-thickness macular holes (FTMH). Single-centre retrospective study including 129 eyes of 126 patients with large (>500μm) FTMH between January 2018-October 2022. All patients underwent 23/25G vitrectomy and gas with standard internal limiting membrane (ILM) peel, pedicle transposition, inverted, or free flap technique. Postoperative OCT images were assessed by 2 independent masked graders. Mean age was 73.2 years (SD 8.4) with median F/U of 5 months (IQR 8). Overall anatomical success rate was 81%; significantly lower (59%) for the standard ILM peel (p<0.0001). The pedicle transposition flap showed superior visual recovery compared to the free flap (+27 vs +12 ETDRS letters, p=0.02). At 3 months, restoration of the ELM was significantly better for the pedicle transposition flap compared to free flap and standard ILM peel (p=0.008 and p=0.03), and superior to all the other techniques at 6 months (p=0.02, p=0.04 and p=0.006). Standard ILM peel alone offers inferior outcomes for the management of large FTMH. Of the alternative ILM techniques, despite similar closure rates, foveal microstructural recovery is most complete following the pedicle transposition flap, and least complete following the free flap.