Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Differentiating full thickness macular holes from impending macular holes and macular pseudoholes


AIMS The reliability of scanning laser ophthalmoscope (SLO) microperimetry in differentiating full thickness macular holes from macular pseudoholes and impending macular holes was evaluated.

METHODS 106 eyes with the clinical diagnosis of full thickness macular holes, macular pseudoholes, and impending (stage 1) macular holes were examined for the presence of deep or relative scotoma using SLO microperimetry. The relation between these scotomas and the clinical diagnosis was studied.

RESULTS Deep and relative scotomas were detected in all 57 eyes with clinically defined full thickness macular holes. In contrast, among 49 eyes diagnosed with macular pseudoholes or impending macular holes, no deep and only one relative scotoma was observed. The sensitivity of the presence of a deep scotoma as an indicator of the clinical diagnosis of a full thickness macular hole was 100% (57 of 57), and the specificity was 100% (49 of 49). The sensitivity of the presence of a relative scotoma was 100% (57 of 57) and the specificity was 98.0% (48 of 49).

CONCLUSION With SLO microperimetry, full thickness macular holes can be precisely and objectively distinguished from other conditions that mimic macular holes.

  • macular holes
  • pseudoholes
  • scanning laser ophthalmoscope
  • microperimetry.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles

  • Editorial