Journal article
Authors list: Confalonieri, Filippo; Haave, Hanna; Binder, Susanne; Bober, Agnieszka Monika; Bragadottir, Ragnheidur; Baerland, Thomas; Faber, Rowan; Forsaa, Vegard; Gonzalez-Lopez, Julio J.; Govetto, Andrea; Haugstad, Marta; Ivastinovic, Domagoj; Jenko, Neza Cokl; Nicoara, Simona Delia; Kaljurand, Kuldar; Kozak, Igor; Kvanta, Anders; Lytvynchuk, Lyubomyr; Nawrocka, Zofia Anna; Pajic, Sanja Petrovic; Petrovic, Mojca Globocnik; Radecka, Liga; Rehak, Matus; Romano, Mario R.; Ruban, Andrii; Speckauskas, Martynas; Stene-Johansen, Ingar; Stranak, Zbynek; Thaler, Angela; Thein, Anna Sophie Aagaard; Theocharis, Ioannis; Tomic, Zoran; Yan, Xiaohe; Zekolli, Muhamet; Zhuri, Burim; Znaor, Ljubo; Petrovski, Beata Eva; Kolko, Miriam; Lumi, Xhevat; Petrovski, Goran
Publication year: 2023
Pages: 815-825
Journal: Acta Ophthalmologica
Volume number: 101
Issue number: 7
ISSN: 1755-375X
eISSN: 1755-3768
Open access status: Green
DOI Link: https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.15682
Publisher: Wiley
Purpose: To derive a Delphi method-based consensus for the surgical management of Full Thickness Macular Hole (FTMH) and Lamellar Macular Hole (LMH). Methods: 37 expert VR surgeons from 21 mainly European countries participated in Delphi method-based questionnaire for diagnosis and treatment of FTMHs and LMHs. Results: A total of 36 items were rated in round 1 by 37 participants, of which 10 items achieved consensus: intraoperative verification of PVD; clinical superiority of OCT-based FTMH classification; practical ineffectiveness of ocriplasmin; circular 360 degrees ILM peeling for small macular holes; use of regular surgical technique for the size of the hole in concomitant retinal detachment; performing complete vitrectomy; SF6 gas as preferred tamponade; cataract surgery if crystalline lens is mildly/moderately opaque; removal of both ILM and LHEP in LMH surgery. In round 2, 18 items with moderate consensus (45-70% agreement) in round 1 were rated by 35 participants. Final consensus was reached in 35% of questions related to both diagnosis and surgical procedures. Conclusions: This Delphi study provides valuable information about the consensus/disagreement on different scenarios encountered during FTMH and LMH management as a guide tosurgical decision-making. High rate of disagreement and/or variable approaches still exist for treating such relatively common conditions.
Abstract:
Citation Styles
Harvard Citation style: Confalonieri, F., Haave, H., Binder, S., Bober, A., Bragadottir, R., Baerland, T., et al. (2023) Macular hole Delphi consensus statement (MHOST), Acta Ophthalmologica, 101(7), pp. 815-825. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.15682
APA Citation style: Confalonieri, F., Haave, H., Binder, S., Bober, A., Bragadottir, R., Baerland, T., Faber, R., Forsaa, V., Gonzalez-Lopez, J., Govetto, A., Haugstad, M., Ivastinovic, D., Jenko, N., Nicoara, S., Kaljurand, K., Kozak, I., Kvanta, A., Lytvynchuk, L., Nawrocka, Z., ...Petrovski, G. (2023). Macular hole Delphi consensus statement (MHOST). Acta Ophthalmologica. 101(7), 815-825. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.15682
Keywords
DELPHI consensus statement; Full thickness macular hole (FTMH); Lamellar Macular Hole (LMH); surgical decision-making; surgical management
