Efficacy of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) versus perfluoropropane (C3F8) tamponade in large macular hole

TL;DR

This study compares two gases used in eye surgery for large macular holes and finds both are equally effective.

Contribution

The study shows SF6 gas is as effective as C3F8 for treating large macular holes despite worse initial conditions.

Findings

Both SF6 and C3F8 achieved high rates of macular hole closure.

Visual outcomes and complication rates were comparable between the two groups.

SF6 performed equally well even with larger hole sizes and worse initial metrics.

Abstract

To evaluate the efficacy of SF6 versus C3F8 gas tamponade for large idiopathic macular holes.

The study included 60 eyes with large macular holes managed with pars plana vitrectomy, inverted internal limiting membrane flap, and gas tamponade with either SF6 group (30 eyes of 30 patients) or C3F8 group (30 eyes of 30 patients). Based on minimal linear diameter (MLD), subjects were further classified into two groups: large (400 - <600 μm) or very large (>600 μm); compared for anatomical closure, improvement in best corrected visual acuity, and development of complications.

Both groups were comparable in baseline features of age, sex, etiology, and size of hole, with significantly larger MLD (708.2 ± 154.62 vs. 622.6 ± 114.08 μm; p=0.017) and a poorer macular hole index (0.36 ± 0.06 vs 0.31 ± 0.04; p=0.003) in the SF6 group. Macular hole closure was achieved in all eyes in the C3F8 group and 29 of 30 eyes in the SF6 group. Significant improvement was observed in vision in both groups from baseline at six months post-surgery. Cataract development/progression was observed in one patient in both groups, with no significant increase in intraocular pressure. In sub-groups of very large macular holes, despite significantly larger MLD and poorer macular hole index in the SF6 group, structural and functional outcomes were comparable to C3F8.

The management of large macular holes is a critical challenge as these conditions can severely impair central vision and quality of life for affected patients. Surgical intervention using tamponade agents is a standard approach to promote hole closure and retinal healing. Both SF6 and C3F8 have demonstrated effectiveness in promoting macular hole closure. While the evidence is somewhat mixed, several studies indicate that SF6 may be associated with quicker visual recovery in the early postoperative period. However, the long-term visual outcomes are often comparable between the two agents. In the present study, we compared the efficacy of both these tamponade agents for large and very large idiopathic macular holes.

Both SF6 and C3F8 tamponades are equally effective in the treatment of large macular holes. However, despite poorer pre-operative prognostic factors like larger MLD and macular hole index, the efficacy and safety of SF6 gas tamponade are comparable to C3F8 tamponade.

Figures