Macular hole surgery: Comparison of longstanding versus recent macular holes

Arthur Willis, Jr., J. F. Garcia-Cosio

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

76 Scopus citations

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of the study is to determine the effect that the duration of the macular hole has on the postoperative visual result. Methods: The authors reviewed 132 consecutive eyes that underwent macular hole surgery. Eyes were separated based on the time interval between the onset of symptoms and the surgical procedure into group 1 (<2 months), group 2 (2-6 months), and group 3 (>6 months). Results: In group 1, distance vision improved 3.94 Snellen chart lines on average and near vision 6.03 lines. In group 2, distance vision improved 3.42 lines on average and near vision 5.31 lines. In group 3, distance vision improved 2.96 lines on average and near vision 4.96 lines. The two main factors that influenced visual improvement were anatomic closure and duration of symptoms. Conclusion: Visual improvement rates varied with the length of time that a macular hole existed before surgery. Recent holes fared better than did longstanding holes. Even in longstanding holes, useful vision could be obtained. Near vision improved more than did distance vision.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1811-1814
Number of pages4
JournalOphthalmology
Volume103
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1996

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Macular hole surgery: Comparison of longstanding versus recent macular holes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this