PNEUMATIC VITREOLYSIS VERSUS PARS PLANA VITRECTOMY IN FOCAL SYMPTOMATIC VITREOMACULAR TRACTION SYNDROME

PURPOSE: To compare pneumatic vitreolysis and pars plana vitrectomy in the management of focal symptomatic vitreomacular traction (VMT). METHOD: Patients aged 18 years or older, with idiopathic focal symptomatic VMT and best-corrected visual acuity <20/40, without any other retinal pathology were randomized to undergo pneumatic vitreolysis (Group 1) or pars plana vitrectomy (Group 2). The primary outcome measure was resolution of traction confirmed with optical coherence tomography at 3 months. Secondary outcome measures were to compare changes in best-corrected visual acuity, central foveal thickness, and complications if any. RESULTS: A total of 30 eyes of 30 patients were included with 15 eyes in each group. Vitreomacular traction resolved successfully in 12 of 15 (80%) eyes in Group 1 and in all (100%) eyes in Group 2 (P = 0.224). The mean visual acuity improved from 0.80 ± 0.26 (20/126 Snellen's equivalent) to 0.70 ± 0.46 logMAR (20/100 Snellen's equivalent) in Group 1 (P = 0.71) and from 0.904 ± 0.44 (20/160 Snellen's equivalent) to 0.47 ± 0.26 logMAR (20/59 Snellen's equivalent) in Group 2 (P = 0.0016). Although 4 of 15 (26.66%) eyes in Group 1 had formation of full-thickness macular hole and 7 eyes required resurgery (4 for full-thickness macular hole and 3 for unresolved VMT), none in the pars plana vitrectomy group had any complications requiring resurgery (P = 0.0063). Two eyes in the pars plana vitrectomy group had intraoperative deroofing of the fovea leading to full-thickness macular hole. CONCLUSION: Pars plana vitrectomy is better than pneumatic vitreolysis as a single intervention in the management of focal symptomatic VMT.