Primary Lamellar Macular Holes: To Vit or Not to Vit

Lamellar macular hole in highly myopic eyes and insights into its development, evolution, and treatment: a mini-review

Lamellar macular holes (LMHs) are a manifestation of myopic tractional maculopathy (MTM). Owing to the complex and multidirectional traction force in the elongated eyeball, the clinical features, development, evolution, and treatment algorithms of LMH in highly myopic eyes may differ from those of idiopathic LMH or MTM in general. This review aimed to specifically explore the LMHs in highly myopic eyes. Several developmental processes of LMH and their association with macular retinoschisis have been demonstrated, with the tractional component identified in all processes. Epiretinal proliferation was more prevalent and more extensive in LMHs in highly myopic eyes than in idiopathic LMHs. LMHs in highly myopic eyes may remain stable or progress to foveal detachment and full-thickness macular hole with or without retinal detachment. The predictive factors associated with disease progression were summarized to facilitate monitoring and guide surgical intervention. The treatment of LMHs in highly myopic eyes was based on an algorithm for treating myopic tractional maculopathy, including gas tamponade, pars plana vitrectomy, macular buckling, and a combination of vitrectomy and macular buckling. New internal limiting membrane (ILM) manipulation techniques such as fovea-sparing ILM peeling or fovea-sparing ILM peeling combined with ILM flap insertion could reduce the risk of developing iatrogenic full-thickness macular holes postoperatively. Further research should focus on the treatment of LMH in highly myopic eyes.

Multimodel Imaging Evidence of Traction Component in Lamellar Macular Hole with Epiretinal Proliferation

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to investigate the association of epiretinal traction in idiopathic lamellar macular hole (LMH) with or without lamellar hole-associated epiretinal proliferation (LHEP).

METHODS

A retrospective consecutive case series included 108 eyes diagnosed with LMH in a single tertiary referral center. Epiretinal traction was determined by the presence of epiretinal membrane (ERM), attached posterior hyaloid, or vascular traction with multimodal imaging studies and intraoperative findings in those received surgical interventions.

RESULTS

The 53 LMHs with LHEP had similar age, refraction, initial, and final visual acuity to the 55 LMHs without LHEP. Both groups exhibited high incidences of vascular traction (with and without LHEP: 92% and 84%, p = 0.36, respectively) and ERM and/or attached posterior hyaloid (both 100%, p = 1.00). The vision improved 10.5 and 14 ETDRS letters (p = 0.60) in the 30 eyes with and 19 eyes without LHEP that underwent vitrectomy. Vascular tractions released postoperatively in 88% and 100% of LMHs with and without LHEP, respectively (p = 0.27). The LMH, ERM foveoschisis, and mixed subtypes exhibited epiretinal traction in 100% of cases in all subtypes (p = 1.00).

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicated that epiretinal traction, evaluated by multimodal imaging, is the norm rather than the exception in LMHs showing LHEP. The presence of tractional forces should be taken into consideration when treatment was planned in LMHs.