Skip to main content
Download PDF

Vitrectomy with sulfur hexafluoride versus air tamponade for idiopathic macular hole: a retrospective study

BMC Ophthalmology volume 23, Article number: 331 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

To evaluate the effect of room air and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) gas in idiopathic macular hole(MH)surgery.

Methods

Retrospective, interventional, and comparative study. 238 eyes with the idiopathic macular hole that underwent pars plana vitrectomy, internal limiting membrane peeling, fluid-air exchange, and 20% SF6 (SF6 group:125 eyes) or room air tamponade (air group: 113 eyes) were reviewed. The primary outcome measure was the closure rate of primary surgery.

Results

The baseline characteristics of the SF6 group and air group were comparable except for the hole size (479.90 ± 204.48 vs. 429.38 ± 174.63 μm, P = 0.043). The anatomical closure rate was 92.8% (116 / 125) with the SF6 group and 76.1% (86 / 113) with the air group (P < 0.001). A cut-off value of MH size to predict primary anatomical closure was 520 μm, which is based on the lower limit of 95% confidential interval of the MH size among the unclosed patients in the air group. There was no significant difference in anatomical closure rates between SF6 and air group (98.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.051) for MH ≤ 520 μm, whereas a significantly lower anatomical closure rate was shown in the air group than SF6 group (46.2% vs. 84.0%, P < 0.001) for MH > 520 μm.

Conclusion

SF6 exhibited more effectiveness than air to achieve a good anatomical outcome for its longer tamponade when MH > 520 μm.

Peer Review reports

Background

Nowadays, the standard treatment for full-thickness macular hole (FTMH) is pars plana vitrectomy (PPV), internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling, gas tamponade, and when the macular hole size is larger than 400 μm, face down position is significant for higher closure rate [1,2,3,4]. As for the gas tamponade, more surgeons prefer to use sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) because it can not only achieve a similar success rate as perfluoro ethane (C2F6) and perfluoro propane (C3F8) but also reduced the negative impact on patient’s daily activity and related complications [5,6,7]. Recently, several studies have concluded that air provided equivalent MH closure rates compared to SF6 [8, 9], and had shorter tamponade time. However, their conclusion was limited by relatively small sample size (22 patients) [8], small hole size (mean MH size ≤ 400 μm) [5, 9], or variable surgical techniques which may affect the validation and application of the results. Our study is a more strictly designed study that aims to compare the anatomical and functional outcomes of vitrectomy with SF6 or air tamponade for idiopathic macular holes, especially in large diameters of macular holes. And try to find out the cut-point of the MH size for different gas tamponade.

Method

Study design

The study adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Peking University People’s Hospital research ethics committees and the Peking University institutional review board. This is a observational, retrospective, interventional, comparative study of idiopathic MH patients whose data were collected from two prospective studies of our group which shared the same protocol except for the gas tamponade (NCT02930369, NCT 02905409). The study adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Peking University People’s Hospital research ethics committees and the Peking University institutional review board.

Patient selection

Treatment-naive full-thickness idiopathic MH patients who underwent PPV in Peking University People’s Hospital from May 2012 to June 2019 were selected by our study. The inclusion criteria included: [1] less than or equal to 3 years duration (based on symptoms reported by the patient) [2]. the surgical procedure that had been standardized in our previous studies (NCT02930369, NCT 02905409), including standard 23- or 25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy with indocyanine green-assisted ILM peeling and 20% SF6 or filtered air tamponade combined with or without phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation [3]. a minimum follow-up of 6 months. The exclusion criteria included: [1] high myopia (> 6 diopters) [2]. macular hole was secondary to other fundus diseases [3]. the presence of other ocular diseases which may cause decreased vision [4]. retinal detachment due to macular hole [5]. history of previous vitrectomy. For patients with bilateral MHs eligible, only the eye which underwent PPV first was enrolled. The study protocol was approved by the institutional ethics committee.

Gas tamponade was 20% SF6 for idiopathic MH patients in a previous study (NCT02930369), and thus was analyzed as the SF6 group. Phacoemulsification and lens implantation was performed if a cataract was present in the SF6 group unless pseudophakic eye. And the other study (NCT02905409) followed the surgical protocol of air tamponade, which was analyzed as the air group. All patients in the air group underwent phacoemulsification and lens implantation unless they were already pseudophakic before the surgery. Patients were instructed to maintain a prone position until the gas bubble was absorbed absolutely when the MH size was larger than 400 μm, and other patients were instructed to maintain a prone position as the control variable.

Data collection

Data obtained for each patient included age, gender, duration of symptoms, peeling area, macular hole size, and lens status (phakic, pseudophakic, or aphakic) at baseline and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) measured by Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart at 4 m, intraocular pressure measurement, slit-lamp examination of the anterior segment, dilated fundus examination and spectral domain optical coherence tomography [10] (SD-OCT, Optovue, Fremont, CA, US, Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany) at baseline and each postoperative visit. Hole sizes were defined as the shortest distances between the edges of the broken ends of the detached neurosensory retina in the OCT B-scan with the maximum dimensions.

The primary outcome was the hole closure rate of the primary surgery. The second outcome was the proportion of the eyes that BCVA improved at least 10 ETDRS letters at 6 months. Patients with MH unclosed at the first postoperative visit within 1 month were considered as surgical failure, and were recommended to receive reoperation.

Statistical analysis

In the univariate analyses, PASS 2019 (PASS for Windows, Kaysville,USA) was used to calculate power, the significance level of the test is 0.05, continuous variables were compared using an independent sample two-tailed Student’s t-test. And chi-square test was conducted in subgroup analysis to compare closure rates in 2 groups with different hole sizes. We defined the cut-off value based on the lower limit of 95% CI of the MH size among the unclosed patients both in the air group and SF6 group. Binary logistic regression analyses were used to analyze the effect of single parameters on closure rate in different size macular holes. In addition to p-values for the influence as predictors for the closure of the macular hole, Odds Ratios (ORs) were calculated to estimate the strength of influence, each with a 95% confidential interval (CI). And risk factors for the primary anatomical failure of MH surgery between the SF6 group and the air group were performed using the Mann-Whitney U test. SPSS 26.0 (SPSS for Windows, Chicago, IL) was used in all the statistical analyses of this study. A P value of 0.05 or less was considered statistically significant.

Results

Baseline demographic characteristics

A total of 238 eyes from 238 patients were included in this study, of which 125 eyes were in the SF6 group and 113 eyes were in the air group. Group sample size of 125 in SF6 group and 113 in air group achieved power of 95.02%. The demographic and characteristics of all patients and patients in each group are shown in Table 1. All baseline characteristics between the SF6 group and air group were comparable, except for the hole size (479.90 ± 204.48 μm vs. 429.38 ± 174.63 μm, P = 0.043, independent sample t-test). The average peeling range of all eyes during the operation is (2.96 ± 0.99)×(2.95 ± 0.98) papillary diameter(PD). One eye in the SF6 group and 4 eyes in the air group were pseudophakic preoperatively. The mean follow-up of all patients was 10.2 ± 3.2 months.

Table 1 Patients’ characteristics
Full size table

The cut-off value of MH size for different gas

The average MH size of closed patients in the air group was 383.55 ± 17.38 μm (95%CI 348.99–418.10 μm), and the average MH size of unclosed patients was 575.37 ± 25.36 μm (95%CI 523.25–627.49 μm). Whereas in the SF6 group, the mean MH size of closed and unclosed patients was 460.42 ± 18.25 μm (95% CI 424.27–496.57 μm), and 731.00 ± 42.58 μm (95%CI 632.81-829.19 μm), respectively.(Figure 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Macular hole closure in different gas groups, SPSS, Error Bar Chart

Full size image

Accordingly, we defined 520 μm as the cut-off value based on the lower limit of 95% CI of the MH size among the unclosed patients in the air group. Similarly, we defined 630 μm as the cut-off value in the SF6 group.

Anatomical outcome and correlated factors

Stratified the patients based on the MH size of 520 μm, the primary MH closure rates of the SF6 group and air group were shown in Table 2. In the large MH size subgroup (> 520 μm), the MH closure rate of the air group was 46.2% (18/38), which was much lower than that of the SF6 group 84.0% (42/50), showed a significant difference (P < 0.001, Pearson chi-square test). In the small MH size group (≤ 520 μm), the MH closure rate of the air and SF6 group was similar (91.9% vs. 98.7%, respectively, P = 0.051, Fisher’s exact test).

Table 2 The anatomical outcome of 2 groups stratified by MH size
Full size table

The primary hole closure rate was 84.9% (202/238) in total, 92.8% (116/125) in the SF6 group, and 76.1% (86/113) in the air group. The closure rate of the air group was significantly lower than that of the SF6 group (P < 0.001, Pearson chi-square test). In the SF6 group, eyes with MH size ≤ 520 μm showed a significantly higher closure rate than MH size > 520 μm (98.7% vs. 84.0%, P = 0.002, Fisher’s exact test), and this difference in the air group was more remarkable (91.9% vs. 46.2%, P < 0.001, Pearson chi-square test).

According to the results of binary logistic regression analysis shown in Table 3, when the macular hole size ≤ 520 μm, the age and the type of gas does not affect the closure rate. (P > 0.05), while the duration of the disease can affect the closure rate. (P = 0.03). However, when the hole size>520 μm, the age and the type of gas can affect the closure rate (P < 0.01), as well as the duration of disease (P = 0.01).

Table 3 Binary logistic regression analysis of macular hole healing rate
Full size table

The 36 patients who failed to achieve MH closure in primary PPV had an average hole size of 614.28 ± 145.93 μm. The baseline characteristics of the patients who failed to achieve MH closure in both groups were comparable except for the MH size, which was significantly larger in the SF6 group (731.00 ± 127.74 vs. 575.37 ± 131.75 μm, P = 0.004). (Table 4)

Table 4 Details of primary failed MH in both groups
Full size table

Functional outcome

The mean BCVA of all patients at 6 months visit was 63.94 ± 13.16 ETDRS letters, and significantly improved by an average of 21.66 ± 16.15 ETDRS letters from baseline (P < 0.001, paired t-test). The proportion of eyes with BCVA improved more than 2 lines was 78.9% (172 / 218) in total. The mean BCVA improvement after the surgery in the SF6 group was significantly higher than in the air group (24.40 ± 16.47 vs. 18.24 ± 15.13 ETDRS letters, P = 0.005, independent t-test). However, when analyzed patients achieved primary hole closure, improvement of BCVA was comparable between the SF6 and the air group (25.52 ± 16.11 vs. 21.89 ± 13.54 ETDRS letters, P = 0.109, independent t-test). The proportion of eyes with BCVA improved more than 2 lines was similar in both groups (87.6% vs. 84.9%, P = 0.601, Pearson chi-square test).

Discussion

The expected duration of the gas bubble for MH closure has no consensus, leading to the surgeon’s discretion in the choice of gas type. Recently, surgeons were inclined to use shorter-lasting gas such as SF6 [11] which can provide similar surgical outcomes, lower incidence of gas-related adverse events, and shorter disturbance of daily life compared with C2F6 and C3F8, irrespective of stage, size, or duration of MHs [12,13,14,15]. Based on the evidence that hole closure occurs often within the first postoperative 24 h observed on OCT [16, 17], sterilized air is expected to replace SF6 or other longer-lasting gas since it is the known gas with the shortest intraocular lasting period. We performed the present study to find out the effectiveness of air in MH surgery and find out that air might provide similar effectiveness as SF6 for patients with MH size smaller than 520µmwhich is different from most previous studies that used 400 μm as the cut-off point of large MH based on Gass’s staging system [18] or international vitreomacular traction study group suggested in 2013 [19] It is identified that air is effective for small MH. Usui et al. [8] retrospectively studied patients with an average of 303 μm and 227 μm in the SF6 group and air group respectively, for whom achieved a 100% closure rate, and Tao et al. [20] confirmed that with an average MH size of 255 μm. Hasegawa et al. [9] included patients with a mean hole diameter of 352 μm in the SF6 group and 370 μm in the air group, who achieved a similar closure rate of around 91.0%. Recently, there is a multicenter, randomized controlled, non-inferiority study suggesting that air tamponade is inferior to SF6 tamponade for MHs of ≤ 400 μm in diameter [21], which is in contrast to our result. However, there are certain differences between the two studies in the sample size and baseline data including age, course of disease, and so on, which may lead to different conclusions. What’s more, the p-value in our study is close to 0.05 (P = 0.051), but the macular hole closure rate in the air group is a little bit lower than that in the SF6 group (91.9% vs. 98.7%), which may have clinical significance.

However, for large diameter macular holes (> 400 μm), the MH size boundary of short-term effect gas tamponades such as SF6 and air are controversial. Many researchers reported different cut-off points of large MH in certain circumstances recently. Steel et al. [22] found a cut-off of 500 μm as a new pragmatic size definition of large MHs for the surgical treatment using various long-lasting gas tamponade including SF6, C2F6, C3F8, and various ILM peeling techniques. The present study was based on the data of 2 well-designed prospective clinical trials sharing the same protocol except for the gas type. And the mean MH size was 455.92 μm in the present study, which was much larger than previous literature concerning the air tamponade, filling the gap in this field [22,23,24]. MHs > 520 μm achieved an anatomical closure rate of 46.2%, in contrast with the high closure rate of 91.9% in MHs ≤ 520 μm in the air group, which may indicate that air has a good effect on macular holes when MHs ≤ 520 μm, expanded the indication of air tamponade use for MH size from 400 μm in previous studies to 520 μm. However, few surgeons preferred to use air in the real world. Jackson et al. [14] reported 2.2% and Steel et al. [11] reported only 0.3% of air tamponade used in 2 studies involving a large cohort of more than 1000 patients. By providing the validated evidence for surgeons to choose the gas tamponade during the MH surgery, we hope to change the current situation.

In this study, the postoperative BCVA of both groups improved significantly compared with preoperative BCVA, and the SF6 group improved greater than the air group. However, taking the lower anatomical closure rate of the air group into consideration, patients who achieved primary anatomical closure of 2 groups showed similar BCVA improvement (P = 0.120, Mann–Whitney U test). Furthermore, because our previous study [25] proved that postoperative BCVA was significantly correlated with anatomical outcomes, primary surgical success should be considered as the primary goal of the surgery.

The present study indicated that patients with longer duration, larger MH, and elder age were vulnerable to experiencing surgical failure, which is consistent with many previous studies [9, 11, 26]. And for patients with primary failed surgical outcome, the MH size of the air group was smaller than SF6 group (587.38 ± 122.17 μm vs. 684.0 ± 91.56 μm, respectively), which shows a significant difference for the small sample (P = 0.049, Mann–Whitney U test), providing another evidence that SF6 might be more effective for large MHs than air does. Furthermore, it should be noted that our previous study and other studies have shown that the gauge size does not affect the closure rate [25, 27].

The present study did not analyze the adverse events corresponding to tamponade agents of the 2 groups. However, many studies [12, 15] have already elucidated that SF6 has a lower incidence of glaucoma, cataract progression, and pupillary capture than C3F8 and C2F6.

Limitations of this study include its retrospective design and lack of adverse event data. Thus, a well-designed, adequately powered, prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial concerning the expansile gas and air tamponade effect should be conducted to replicate our results and to determine with confidence its value. What’s more, our study is a retrospective study, and its sample size is based on the previous collected database. The sample size of this study may affect the analysis especially the subgroup analysis, thus the further prospective study is needed in the future.

In conclusion, what’s more important, for patients with large MH, like MH size > 520 μm, SF6 tamponade is more effective than air to achieve good anatomical and functional outcomes for its longer tamponade. Air may provide similar effect with MH ≤ 520 μm to achieve hole closure and BCVA improvement as SF6, and further research is needed to validate the effectiveness of air and SF6 on the closure rate of small-size macular holes.

Data Availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Abbreviations

BCVA:

Best corrected visual acuity

C2F6:

Perfluoro ethane

C3F8:

Perfluoro propane

ETDRS:

Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study

FTMH:

Full-thickness macular hole

ILM:

Internal limiting membrane

MH:

Macular hole

PD:

Papillary diameter

PPV:

Pars plana vitrectomy

SD-OCT:

Spectral domain optical coherence tomography

SF6:

Sulfur hexafluoride

References

  1. Zhao XY, Meng LH, Zhang WF, Yu WH, Chen YX, Min HY. PUMCH experience and strategy for the management of idiopathic macular hole: a retrospective cohort study. Int Ophthalmol. 2022;42(4):1133–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Yu X, Li X, Xing Y, Ma J. Long-term continuous assessment of internal limiting membrane filling induced super-large macular hole healing. Am J Ophthalmol. 2022.

  3. Ando F, Sasano K, Ohba N, Hirose H, Yasui O. Anatomic and visual outcomes after indocyanine green-assisted peeling of the retinal internal limiting membrane in idiopathic macular hole surgery. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004;137(4):609–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ye T, Yu JG, Liao L, Liu L, Xia T, Yang LL. Macular hole surgery recovery with and without face-down posturing: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Ophthalmol. 2019;19(1):265.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Lindtjorn B, Krohn J, Haugstad M, Stene-Johansen I, Austeng D, Basit S et al. Air versus Sulfur Hexafluoride Gas Tamponade for Small and Medium-Sized Macular Holes: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial. Ophthalmol Retina. 2022.

  6. Guillaubey A, Malvitte L, Lafontaine PO, Jay N, Hubert I, Bron A, et al. Comparison of face-down and seated position after idiopathic macular hole surgery: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008;146(1):128–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lyssek-Boron A, Krysik K, Jankowska-Szmul J, Grabarek BO, Osuch M, Kijonka M, et al. Comparison of methods of Endotamponade used during 23-Gauge Pars Plana Vitrectomy and the risk of raised intraocular pressure during 24-Month Follow-Up: a retrospective study of 196 patients. Med Sci Monit. 2019;25:9327–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. H U TY, Y H. Comparative study of the effects of room air and sulfur hexafluoride gas tamponade on functional and morphological recovery after macular hole surgery: a retrospective study. Ophthalmic Res. 2013;50(4):227–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. S YHYHYMRA. K, T K, Equivalent tamponade by room air as compared with SF(6) after macular hole surgery. Graefe’s archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie. 2009;247(11):1455–9.

  10. Lyssek-Boroń A, Wylęgała A, Krysik K, Janiszewska-Bil D, Wylęgała E, Grabarek BO et al. Assessment of vascular changes in patients after Pars Plana vitrectomy surgery due to Macula-Off Rhegmatogenous Retinal detachment. J Clin Med. 2021;10(21).

  11. Steel DH, Donachie PHJ, Aylward GW, Laidlaw DA, Williamson TH, Yorston D et al. Factors affecting anatomical and visual outcome after macular hole surgery: findings from a large prospective UK cohort. Eye (Lond). 2020.

  12. A M, A G, M G. SULFURHEXAFLUORIDE (SF6) VERSUS PERFLUOROPROPANE (C3F8) GAS AS TAMPONADE IN MACULAR HOLE SURGERY. Retina (Philadelphia Pa). 2017;37(2):283–90.

  13. SS K, WE S, WJ F. Outcomes of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) versus perfluoropropane (C3F8) gas tamponade for macular hole surgery. Retina (Philadelphia Pa). 2008;28(10):1408–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. TL J, PHJ D. United Kingdom National Ophthalmology Database study of vitreoretinal surgery: report 2, macular hole. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(3):629–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. R R, I M, K K. Outcomes of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) versus perfluoroethane (C2F6) gas tamponade for non-posturing macular-hole surgery. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96(2):185–8.

  16. Claus Eckardt TE, Ute Echardt U, Porkert C, Gesser. Macular hole surgery with air tamponade and optical coherence tomography-based duration of face-down positioning. Reitna. 2008;28(8):1087–96.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kikushima W, Imai A, Toriyama Y, Hirano T, Murata T, Ishibashi T. Dynamics of macular hole closure in gas-filled eyes within 24 h of surgery observed with swept source optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmic Res. 2015;53(1):48–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Johnson RN, Gass JD. Idiopathic macular holes. Observations, stages of formation, and implications for surgical intervention. Ophthalmology. 1988;95(7):917–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Duker JS, Kaiser PK, Binder S, de Smet MD, Gaudric A, Reichel E, et al. The International Vitreomacular Traction Study Group classification of vitreomacular adhesion, traction, and macular hole. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(12):2611–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tao J, Chen H, Chen Y, Yu J, Xu J, Mao J, et al. Efficacy of Air Tamponade Treatment of Idiopathic Macular Holes of different diameters and of follow-up Intravitreal Air Tamponade for Persistent Holes. Retina. 2022;42(5):877–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lindtjorn B, Krohn J, Haugstad M, Stene-Johansen I, Austeng D, Basit S, et al. Air versus Sulfur Hexafluoride Gas Tamponade for small and medium-sized Macular Holes: a Randomized Noninferiority Trial. Ophthalmol Retina. 2022;6(9):828–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Steel DH, Donachie PHJ, Aylward GW, Laidlaw DA, Williamson TH, Yorston D, et al. Factors affecting anatomical and visual outcome after macular hole surgery: findings from a large prospective UK cohort. Eye (Lond). 2021;35(1):316–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhu X, Wang J, Li J, Chen H, Huang B, Yan H. The Healing process and functional recovery of Neuroretina after idiopathic macular hole surgery without Internal limiting membrane reversal tamponade. J Ophthalmol. 2020;2020:2478943.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Veith M, Vranova J, Nemcansky J, Studnicka J, Pencak M, Stranak Z, et al. Surgical Treatment of Idiopathic Macular Hole using different types of Tamponades and different postoperative positioning regimens. J Ophthalmol. 2020;2020:8858317.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Yao Y, Qu J, Dong C, Li X, Liang J, Yin H, et al. The impact of extent of internal limiting membrane peeling on anatomical outcomes of macular hole surgery: results of a 54-week randomized clinical trial. Acta Ophthalmol. 2019;97(3):303–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Yanping Yu XL, Zengyi W, Wang J, Liu X, Chen J, Liu Wu, INTERNAL LIMITING MEMBRANE PEELING AND AIR TAMPONADE FOR STAGE III AND STAGE IV IDIOPATHIC MACULAR HOLE. Retina (Philadelphia Pa). 2020;40(1):66–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kusuhara S, Ooto S, Kimura D, Itoi K, Mukuno H, Miyamoto N, et al. Outcomes of 23- and 25-gauge transconjunctival sutureless vitrectomies for idiopathic macular holes. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008;92(9):1261–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Xiulan Xu, Jinglu Feng, and Jian Zhang for their technical support in the trial conduction.

Funding

This work was supported by the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission (Capital Characteristic Clinic Applied Research Project, Z161100000516037, Z171100002217081), National Key R&D Program of China (No.2020YFC2008200), and Project (RDL2020-04) supported by Peking University People’s Hospital Scientific Research Development Funds. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Yuou Yao and Huichao Yan contributed equally and are co-first authors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Peking University People’s Hospital, Xizhimen South Street 11, Xi Cheng District, Beijing, 100044, China

    Yuou Yao, Huichao Yan, Jinfeng Qu, Jianhong Liang, Hong Yin, Chi Ren, Enzhong Jin & Mingwei Zhao

  2. Eye Diseases and Optometry Institute, Beijing, China

    Yuou Yao, Huichao Yan, Jinfeng Qu, Jianhong Liang, Hong Yin, Chi Ren, Enzhong Jin & Mingwei Zhao

  3. Beijing Key Laboratory of Diagnosis and Therapy of Retinal and Choroid Diseases, Beijing, China

    Yuou Yao, Huichao Yan, Jinfeng Qu, Jianhong Liang, Hong Yin, Chi Ren, Enzhong Jin & Mingwei Zhao

  4. College of Optometry, Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing, China

    Yuou Yao, Huichao Yan, Jinfeng Qu, Jianhong Liang, Hong Yin, Chi Ren, Enzhong Jin & Mingwei Zhao

  5. Department of Biostatistics, Peking University Clinical Research Institute, Beijing, China

    Chongya Dong

Authors
  1. Yuou Yao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Huichao Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jinfeng Qu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chongya Dong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jianhong Liang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hong Yin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Chi Ren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Enzhong Jin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Mingwei Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Research design: Mingwei Zhao, Chongya Dong. Acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data: All authors. Wrote or contributed to writing the manuscript: Yuou Yao, Huichao Yan. Reviewed the manuscript: Mingwei Zhao. Statistical analysis: Yuou Yao, Chongya Dong, Huichao Yan. Grant obtained: Mingwei Zhao. Administrative, technical, or material support: All authors. Study supervision: Mingwei Zhao, Jianhong Liang, Hong Yin. Dr. Zhao had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jinfeng Qu or Mingwei Zhao.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Peking University People’s Hospital research ethics committees and the Peking University institutional review board(2021PHB405-001), and informed consent was obtained from all subjects and/or their legal guardian.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yao, Y., Yan, H., Qu, J. et al. Vitrectomy with sulfur hexafluoride versus air tamponade for idiopathic macular hole: a retrospective study. BMC Ophthalmol 23, 331 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-023-03049-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-023-03049-2

Keywords

BMC Ophthalmology

ISSN: 1471-2415

Contact us