Pneumatic vitreolysis versus vitrectomy for the treatment of vitreomacular traction syndrome and macular holes: complication analysis and systematic review with meta-analysis of functional outcomes

BACKGROUND

We conducted a systematic review to compare  the effects of pneumatic vitreolysis (PV), enzymatic vitreolysis (EVL) with ocriplasmin, and pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) on vitreomacular traction (VMT) syndrome and macular holes (MHs) to assess their efficacy as treatment options.

METHODS

Databases, including PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov ( www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov ), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)-including the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2)-, Ovid MEDLINE, and EMBASE (January 2000-October 2022), were searched to identify studies comparing the outcomes of PV versus PPV, PPV versus ocriplasmin and ocriplasmin versus PV. RevMan 5.1 was used for the meta-analysis of the studies.

RESULTS

Among the 89 studies, 79 were considered eligible for qualitative analysis, and 10 quantitative studies were subjected to meta-analysis. PPV resulted in better postoperative visual acuity improvement than ocriplasmin (standardized mean deviation (SMD) = 0.38, 95% CI 0.03-0.73, p = 0.0003). PV resulted in no significant difference in visual improvement compared  with  PPV (SMD = - 0.15, 95% CI - 0.47 to 0.16, p = 0.35). PPV was significantly more effective in terms of the VMT release rate (risk ratio = 0.48, 95% CI 0.38-0.62, p = 0.00001) and MH closure rate (risk ratio = 0.49, 95% CI 0.30-0.81, p = 0.006) than ocriplasmin. PV was more effective than ocriplasmin in terms of the VMT release rate (risk ratio = 0.49, 95% CI 0.35-0.70, p = 0.0001). Qualitative analysis showed MH closure rates of 46%, 47.8%, and 95% and VMT releases rates of 46%, 68% and 100% after ocriplasmin, PV, and PPV treatments, respectively.  Adverse events and postoperative complications occurring after treatment have also been documented in these studies.

CONCLUSION

PPV appears to be the most promising option for MH closure and VMT release, with fewer serious complications than EVL  or PV. However, given the limited number of studies comparing these treatments, further research is needed to establish the superiority of PPV over the other options.

Effect of pneumatic vitreolysis in management of patients with symptomatic focal vitreomacular traction

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy of single intravitreal injection of an expansile concentration of sulphur hexafluoride gas (SF6) in treating patients with symptomatic focal vitreomacular traction (VMT) documented by spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) preoperatively.

METHODS

This is a prospective interventional case series including 30 eyes of 29 patients with symptomatic focal VMT evident on SD-OCT. Pre-operatively, mean best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 20/125 (range 20/400-20/40). Mean central foveal thickness (CFT) was 382 μm (range 149-576 μm; SD ± 91.88). All eyes received single intravitreal injection of 0.3 mL of 100% SF6 gas. Postoperatively, we performed SD-OCT at one week, one month, and three months for all eyes. Primary outcome measure was release of VMT. Secondary outcome measures were changes in postoperative BCVA andCFT.

RESULTS

Overall, VMT release occurred in 24 of 30 eyes by the final follow-up visit (80% final release rate); furthermore, 76.9% of eyes with diabetic maculopathy and 25% of eyes with concurrent epiretinal membrane (ERM) had successful VMT release. VMT release was documented on SD-OCT at an average of 3 weeks (range, 1-12 weeks). The rate of release in phakic eyes was 90% (18 of 20 eyes) versus 60% in pseudophakic eyes (6 of 10 eyes). One patient developed a retinal break at upper nasal retina after two weeks of injection.

CONCLUSION

Pneumatic vitreolysis (PVL) with limited face-down position is a viable option for treating focal VMT with few adverse events. Further studies are needed to evaluate its indications, benefits, and risks.

Anatomical and functional outcomes of pneumatic vitreolysis for treatment of vitreomacular traction with and without macular holes

PURPOSE

To evaluate the outcome of pneumatic vitreolysis (PVL) for vitreomacular traction (VMT) with or without full thickness macular hole (MH) < 400 µm.

METHODS

Forty-seven eyes of 47 patients were included who had undergone PVL for VMT with or without MH. Main outcome measures were release of VMT, MH closure, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and adverse events.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients had isolated VMT and 14 patients VMT with a MH. Four weeks after PVL, the overall VMT release rate was 35/47 (74.5%): 25/37 (67.6%) in phakic and 10/10 (100%) in pseudophakic eyes (p = 0.03). Four of 14 MH (28.6%) were closed. Twenty-two of 47 (46.8%) eyes required a subsequent PPV: 12/33 (36.4%) in the VMT only group and 10/14 (71.4%) in the VMT with MH group. Mean BCVA improved from 0.48 (± 0.24) to 0.34 (± 0.23) logMAR at 6 months in patients with VMT alone (p < 0.001), and from 0.57 (± 0.27) to 0.41 (± 0.28) logMAR in patients with VMT and MH (p = 0.008). Adverse events included new formation of a large MH in 4/33 (12.1%) eyes, failure of MH closure in 10/14 (71.4%) eyes, progression of mean minimum linear diameter (MLD) MH size from baseline 139 (± 67) to 396 (± 130) µm (p < 0.001) and development of a retinal detachment in 4/47 (8.5%) eyes.

CONCLUSION

While PVL leads to a high VMT release rate particularly in pseudophakic eyes, it is associated with a relatively high incidence of MH formation, MH size progression and retinal detachment.

Pneumatic Vitreolysis with Perfluoropropane for Vitreomacular Traction with and without Macular Hole: DRCR Retina Network Protocols AG and AH

PURPOSE

To evaluate pneumatic vitreolysis (PVL) in eyes with vitreomacular traction (VMT) with and without full-thickness macular hole (FTMH).

DESIGN

Two multicenter (28 sites) studies: a randomized clinical trial comparing PVL with observation (sham injection) for VMT without FTMH (Protocol AG) and a single-arm study assessing PVL for FTMH (Protocol AH).

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were adults with central VMT (vitreomacular adhesion was ≤3000 μm). In Protocol AG, visual acuity (VA) was 20/32 to 20/400. In Protocol AH, eyes had a FTMH (≤250 μm at the narrowest point) and VA of 20/25 to 20/400.

METHODS

Pneumatic vitreolysis using perfluoropropane (C3F8) gas.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Central VMT release at 24 weeks (Protocol AG) and FTMH closure at 8 weeks (Protocol AH).

RESULTS

From October 2018 through February 2020, 46 participants were enrolled in Protocol AG, and 35 were enrolled in Protocol AH. Higher than expected rates of retinal detachment and tear resulted in early termination of both protocols. Combining studies, 7 of 59 eyes (12% [95% CI, 6%-23%]; 2 eyes in Protocol AG, 5 eyes in Protocol AH) that received PVL developed rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (n = 6) or retinal tear (n = 1). At 24 weeks in Protocol AG, 18 of 23 eyes in the PVL group (78%) versus 2 of 22 eyes in the sham group (9%) achieved central VMT release without rescue vitrectomy (adjusted risk difference, 66% [95% CI, 44%-88%]; P< 0.001). The mean change in VA from baseline at 24 weeks was 6.7 letters in the PVL group and 6.1 letters in the sham group (adjusted difference, -0.8 [95% CI, -6.1 to 4.5]; P = 0.77). In Protocol AH, 10 of 35 eyes (29% [95% CI, 16%-45%]) achieved FTMH closure without rescue vitrectomy at 8 weeks. The mean change in VA from baseline at 8 weeks was -1.5 letters (95% CI, -10.3 to 7.3 letters).

CONCLUSIONS

In most eyes with VMT, PVL induced hyaloid release. In eyes with FTMH, PVL resulted in hole closure in approximately one third of eyes. These studies were terminated early because of safety concerns related to retinal detachments and retinal tears.

Loculated subretinal fluid after pneumatic vitreolysis

Purpose

To present, to the authors’ knowledge, the first reported case of loculated subretinal fluid associated with pneumatic vitreolysis (PVL).

Observations

A 74 year old female was followed for 9 months with vitreomacular traction (VMT) and 20/20 visual acuity in her right eye. Her visual acuity decreased at 9 months to 20/50 and she was treated with PVL. VMT release was successful on day 7. An isolated shallow pocket of loculated subretinal fluid developed inferotemporal to the fovea at one month after PVL and persisted for 14 months. The subretinal fluid eventually resolved at 14 months after PVL, and visual acuity improved to 20/30, and there were no electroretinographic abnormalities.

Conclusion and Importance

Localized subretinal fluid is an unusual complication of PVL. No adverse visual outcome developed despite the persistent extrafoveal subretinal fluid in this case, and the subretinal fluid eventually resolved over a year after PVL.

Effect of intravitreal C3F8 gas in patients with vitreomacular traction: A retrospective case series

BACKGROUND

We aimed to assess the efficacy of a single intravitreal perfluoropropane (C3F8) gas injection for the treatment of vitreomacular traction with or without a macular hole.

METHODS

In this retrospective case series, seven eyes of six patients with symptomatic vitreomacular traction documented on optical coherence tomography, one with a macular hole additionally, received a single intravitreal C3F8 gas injection of up to 0.3 ml. The primary endpoint was vitreomacular traction release at 1 month after injection. Secondary endpoints included resolution of vitreomacular adhesion within 6 months, nonsurgical closure of macular holes, and change in central foveal thickness and best-corrected visual acuity.

RESULTS

Overall, on optical coherence tomography, six of seven eyes (85.7%) had release of vitreomacular traction during the entire study duration: three within 1 month of injection and the other three within 6 months. Of the latter group, two of the three eyes showed a concurrent epiretinal membrane and one concurrent diabetic retino- and maculopathy. The patient with a macular hole had resolution of vitreomacular traction within 1 month but had to undergo vitrectomy because of nonclosure of the macular hole. Associated adverse events were macular edema with a consequent lamellar hole after injection in one patient, and another patient developed retinal detachment.

CONCLUSION

Intravitreal C3F8gas injection is an inexpensive and promising minimally invasive option for the treatment of symptomatic and persistent vitreomacular traction with or without a macular hole. Further larger studies, especially comparing C3F8 gas injection with other treatment options, are needed.