These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Outcomes of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) versus perfluoropropane (C3F8) gas tamponade for macular hole surgery.
    Author: Kim SS, Smiddy WE, Feuer WJ, Shi W.
    Journal: Retina; 2008; 28(10):1408-15. PubMed ID: 18827734.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To compare outcomes of macular hole surgery using sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) gas versus perfluoropropane (C3F8) gas for idiopathic macular hole repair. DESIGN: Retrospective, interventional, comparative cohort study. METHODS: Institutional clinical practice. A consecutive group of patients undergoing macular hole surgery with SF6 group (38 eyes of 38 patients) and a nonconsecutive, contemporaneous, comparison group with C3F8 was used (41 eyes of 39 patients). Vitrectomy for macular hole surgery using either of two different gases for internal tamponade. Best corrected logarithm of minimal angle resolution visual acuity, anatomic closure, reoperations, development of cataract, and complications such as retinal detachment. RESULT: The macular hole closure rate was similar in both groups [34/38 (90%) with SF6 gas versus 37/41 (91%) with C3F8 gas, P = 0.91]. At 6 months after macular hole surgery, best-corrected visual acuity was improved compare with baseline visual acuity by a mean of 0.32 logarithm of minimal angle resolution in the SF6 group (P = 0.045) and 0.52 logarithm of minimal angle resolution in the C3F8 group (P < 0.001). Development of vision-impairing cataract in phakic eyes was not different, but the myopic shift was greater in the C3F8 group (P = 0.016). CONCLUSION: Macular hole surgery using SF6 gas yields similar results as with C3F8 gas and may be a good option.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]