Surgical therapy versus observation for lamellar macular hole: a retrospective comparison study

Figures & data

Table 1 Clinical outcomes in the study and control groups

	Study group	Control group	P-valuea
Patients (n)	19	21	–
Mean age	69.26 ± 4.47	68.57 ± 4.38	–
Mean CDVA
Initial	0.54 ± 0.92	0.51 ± 1.0	0.537
Final	0.33 ± 0.54	0.55 ± 1.0	0.001**
P-valueb	0.001**	0.025*	–
Mean maximum LMH diameter (μm)
Initial	1,168.31 ± 542.86	1,094.38 ± 552.81	0.672
Final	Not measured	1,221.81 ± 574.51	–
P-valueb	–	0.001**	–
Mean foveal thickness (μm)
Initial	103.00 ± 37.45	90.05 ± 18.47	0.184
Final	195.83 ± 59.68	77.33 ± 21.13	0.001**
P-valueb	0.001**	0.001**	–

Notes: Data are given as the mean ± standard deviation.

a Independent samples test;

b paired samples test;

* P < 0.05;

** P < 0.01.

Abbreviations: CDVA, corrected distance visual acuity; LMH, lamellar macular hole.

Figure 1 Typical optical coherence tomography image representative of successful lamellar macular hole surgery.