A randomized controlled trial of alleviated positioning after small macular hole surgery. Comparison of face-down and seated position after idiopathic macular hole surgery: a randomized clinical trial.
To establish whether the success rate of surgery for small idiopathic macular holes (diameter, ≤ 400 μm) is significantly reduced if facedown positioning is replaced by simply taking care to avoid the supine position.
                Randomized, controlled, parallel-assignment, open-label, interventional, multicenter clinical trial.
                Sixty-nine patients from 6 specialized vitreoretinal units, randomized into 2 parallel groups and followed up after surgery for 3 months.
                All patients underwent pars plana vitrectomy, peeling of any epiretinal membrane, and 17% C₂F₆ gas filling. Patients then were advised randomly to observe either strict facedown positioning for 22 of 24 hours or simply to avoid the supine position for 10 days.
                The primary outcome measure was the rate of anatomic closure 3 months after surgery. Main secondary measurements included Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) visual acuity, progression of cataract, and frequency of complications.
                The mean size of macular holes was approximately 300 μm in both groups. Closure rates were more than 90% in both groups: 32 (91.4%) of 34 eyes in the alleviated positioning group versus 32 (94.1%) of 35 eyes in the facedown positioning group (lower margin of 95% confidence interval of difference, -14.88%). The ETDRS scores at 3 months increased in both groups by 10.23 ± 14.64 and 10.52 ± 14.54 letters, respectively. Progression of cataract and the rate of other complications were not significantly different in the 2 groups.
                The success rate of surgery for idiopathic macular holes of 400 μm or smaller is not significantly reduced if facedown positioning is replaced by simply taking care to avoid the supine position. These macular holes can be treated by streamlined surgery, that is, with no internal limiting membrane peeling and no facedown positioning (only avoidance of the supine position) with a closure rate of more than 90% and a mean gain in visual acuity of more than 2 ETDRS lines at 3 months.
                Copyright © 2011 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. To compare two therapeutic modalities on anatomic and functional results after idiopathic macular hole (MH) surgery: seated vs face-down position.
                Multicenter, prospective, randomized trial.
                Setting: University Hospital Dijon and University Hospital Nancy. Patients: One hundred and forty-four patients (150 eyes) were enrolled and randomly separated into two groups for postoperative position: for the 72 eyes in the P0 group and the 78 eyes in the P1 group, the patients were asked to keep the seated (P0 group) and the face-down position (P1 group) after the idiopathic MH surgery. Intervention: All patients underwent a complete vitrectomy with a fluid-air exchange and an intraocular gas tamponade. After the surgery, patients were asked to keep one of the two randomly chosen positions for five days. Main Outcome Measures: Best-corrected visual acuity (VA), fundus examination, and macular optical coherence tomography were performed before and six months after surgery.
                The overall anatomic success rate was 92.7%. The idiopathic MH sealed in 63 of 72 P0 eyes (87.5%) and 76 of 78 P1 eyes (97.4%) (P = .027). The mean VA increased from 0.86 to 0.61 logMAR (0.88 to 0.61 in P0 and 0.84 to 0.60 in P1). However, in a post hoc analysis based on the size of the idiopathic MH, the success rate in idiopathic MHs smaller than 400 microm was not influenced by the postoperative position (P = .47).
                A face-down postoperative position is highly recommended in holes larger than 400 microm. The size of the idiopathic MH seems to be an important factor affecting outcome.
There is currently insufficient evidence from which to draw firm conclusions about the impact of postoperative face-down positioning on the outcome of surgery for macular hole. Of three RCTs, two suggested a benefit in larger holes but none demonstrated evidence of a benefit in smaller holes.
CONSORT adherent RCTs and large scale, well designed non-randomised observational studies are needed to determine with confidence the value of this intervention.