PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11371093

Microbubble retention and failed macular hole surgery.

D R Chow·T Hassan
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This case reports a possible new cause of failed macular hole surgery. Standard macular hole surgery with removal of epiretinal membranes, 16% C3F8, and strict postoperative prone positioning was performed on a patient with stage 4 macular hole. Macular hole surgery failed with retention of a microbubble of C3F8 within the macular hole during the follow-up period. Retention of a microbubble within a macular hole may prevent closure of the hole and be a previously unrecognized cause of failed macular hole surgery.

Explore related subjects

Epiretinal MembraneFemaleFluorocarbonsFollow-Up StudiesHumansMiddle AgedOphthalmologic Surgical ProceduresProne PositionReoperationRetinal PerforationsScotomaSilicone OilsTreatment FailureVisual AcuityVitrectomyCase ReportsJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D R Chow, T Hassan. Microbubble retention and failed macular hole surgery.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11371093/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

25-gauge vs 20-gauge system for pars plana vitrectomy: a prospective randomised clinical trial.

AIM: To compare 25-gauge vs 20-gauge system for pars plana vitrectomy in a prospective, randomised, controlled clinical trial. METHODS: Three-port pars plana vitrectomy was performed in 60 patients belonging to 2 groups. Evaluations were performed preoperatively, intraoperatively, during the first three postoperative days, at 1 week, and at 1 and 3 months. The main outcome measure was time for surgery, divided into duration of wound opening, vitrectomy, retinal manipulation and wound closure. RESULTS: The total duration of surgery showed no significant difference between the groups (p = 0.67). The 25-gauge group showed significantly shorter duration of wound opening (p<0.001) and wound closure (p<0.001). In contrast, the vitrectomy duration was significantly longer in the 25-gauge group (p<0.001). Conjunctival injection and subjective postoperative pain showed significantly lower irritation in the 25-gauge group (p<0.001 for both). CONCLUSION: The 25-gauge vitrectomy system offered significantly improved patient comfort during the first postoperative week. The smaller surgical openings facilitated wound healing and minimised pain. Duration of surgery was comparable between the two systems-the shorter time needed for wound opening and closure in the 25-gauge group being equalised by the longer vitrectomy duration. Intraoperative as well as retinal manipulation and illumination caused more surgical difficulties using the 25-gauge system.

Epiretinal Membrane↗