PURPOSE: To compare the surgical outcomes of macular hole (MH) surgery performed by trainee surgeons using a three-dimensional heads-up display (3D HUD) versus a standard operating microscope (SOM).MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of all consecutive medical records patients operated on for MHs by a trainee surgeon between 2017 and 2020 using either 3D HUD or SOM was performed. Minimum hole diameter, maximum hole diameter, total surgical time, and MH closure rates were compared between the two groups. MH retinal detachments, traumatic MHs, and MHs for which inverted internal limiting membrane flaps were used were excluded from the study.RESULTS: Trainee surgeons operated on 51 patients using 3D HUD and 63 patients using SOM. Age at presentation, intraocular pressure (IOP) at diagnosis, maximum hole diameter, minimum hole diameter, surgical time, duration between diagnosis and surgery were comparable between both groups. MH closure rate was significantly (p<0.004) higher in the 3D HUD group (n=44, 86.3%) than that of the SOM group (n=38, 60.3%). There were no postoperative adverse events such as glaucoma or retinal detachment in either group. Other than the viewing technique, there were no significant variables associated with MH closure in the two groups.CONCLUSION: Surgeries conducted by trainee surgeons using 3D HUD had higher MH closure rates than those using SOM.
View details for DOI 10.1007/s10792-021-01792-3
View details for PubMedID 34184150