Aim To compare the outcomes of non-posturing macular-hole surgery using sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) gas versus perfluoroethane (C2F6) for idiopathic macular hole repair.
Design Interventional, comparative cohort study.
Methods 39 eyes of 38 patients undergoing macular-hole surgery with SF6 were compared with another consecutive group of 39 eyes (39 patients) in whom C2F6 was used. All patients were operated on by a single surgeon and underwent 23G transconjunctival phakovitrectomy with no prone posturing in the postoperative period. The best-corrected Snellen's visual acuity (VA) was converted to the logarithm of minimal angle of resolution (logmar) visual acuity for analysis. Optical coherence tomography documentation of anatomical closure and complications of surgery were recorded.
Results Primary hole closure was achieved in 89.75% in the C2F6 group and 87.2% in the SF6 group. Secondary closure after non-posturing redo surgery with heavy oil (Oxane-HD) was 100% in both groups. The mean preoperative VA in the C2F6 group and SF6 group was 0.81 logMAR and 0.78 respectively. 2 weeks after surgey, SF6 was completely absorbed in all cases, and the mean VA improved to 0.5 logMAR; however, it remained 1.9 logMAR in the C2F6 group. The final mean VA at 6 months was 0.44 (range 0–0.78) and 0.38 (range 0–1) in the C2F6 and SF6 group respectively. There were no instances of pupillary capture in the SF6 group, whereas there were four in the C2F6 group.
Conclusion Macular-hole surgery with SF6 gas achieves similar results to C2F6 and is absorbed faster, allowing quicker visual rehabilitation for the patient.
- macular-hole surgery
- endotamponade agent
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval Ethics approval was provided by the Advised by the local ethics committee.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.