# Risk factors and efficacy of different intravitreal treatment options for symptomatic focal vitreomacular traction with or without full-thickness macular hole

## TL;DR

This study compares two treatments for eye conditions involving vitreomacular traction and finds that one is less effective but preferable in certain cases.

## Contribution

The paper provides a comparative analysis of Ocriplasmin and Perfluoropropane for treating vitreomacular traction with or without macular holes.

## Key findings

- PVL and IVO had similar vitreomacular traction resolution rates.
- PVL was less effective in closing macular holes and had higher side effects than IVO.
- PVL is preferable in the presence of retinal pathologies despite its lower efficacy for macular holes.

## Abstract

To report the efficacy and risk profile of intravitreal injections of Ocriplasmin (IVO) versus Perfluoropropane (PVL) in patients with symptomatic focal vitreomacular traction (VMTS) with or without full-thickness macular hole (FTMH < 400 μm).

Nineteen patients with VMTS received 0.3 ml perfluoropropane, and 68 patients received Ocriplasmin. Primary success criteria included resolution of vitreomacular traction (VMT) and closure of FTMH < 400 μm. Microstructural changes were evaluated using SD OCT for macular hole size, macular edema, subretinal fluid, ellipsoid zone (EZ), and external limiting membrane (ELM).

In the PVL group, 78.92% experienced VMT resolution. None of the FTMH < 400 μm closed with PVL, but all were closed with subsequent pars plana vitrectomy (ppV). New FTMH developed in 7.1% and rhegmatogenous retinal detachment in 5.3%. EZ/ELM changes occurred in 31.6%. In the IVO group, 70.6% achieved VMT resolution. Of 22 patients with FTMH, 45.6% had closure after IVO, with 12 out of 25 needing ppV. New FTMH occurred in 6.5% and retinal detachment in 4.4%. EZ/ELM changes were observed in 16.2%.

Both PVL and IVO showed similar VMT resolution rates. PVL was less effective in closing FTMH and had higher side effects compared to IVO. In the presence of retinal pathologies, PVL is preferable to IVO.