Objective:To investigate the effects of vitreomacular traction (VMT) on the efficacy of internal limiting membrane (ILM) removal combined with air tamponade in the treatment of macular holes.Methods:The clinical data of 44 patients with macular holes who underwent ILM removal combined with air tamponade at the Affiliated Hospital of Shaoxing University from January 2019 to December 2022 were collected and analyzed retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups based on the presence of VMT prior to surgery: the VMT group and the non-VMT group, with 22 cases in each group. The best corrected visual acuity, closure of the macular hole, continuity of the external limiting membrane, and ellipsoid zone integrity were compared between the two groups during the postoperative follow-up.Results:There was no significant difference in the best corrected visual acuity, the rate of visual acuity improvement, or the rate of macular hole closure between the two groups (all P > 0.05). However, the continuity rate of the external limiting membrane [54.5% (12/22)] and the rate of ellipsoid band integrity [36.4% (8/22)] in the VTM group were significantly higher than those in the non-VTM group [9.1% (2/22), 0; χ2 = 10.47, 7.49, both P < 0.05]. Conclusions:Macular holes caused by VMT show better outcomes after vitrectomy to relieve the vitreous traction. However, for macular holes without remarkable VMT, vitrectomy alone may not yield ideal results. In such cases, it may be necessary to expand the area of ILM removal to adequately relieve the tangential traction.

Objective:To investigate the effects of vitreomacular traction (VMT) on the efficacy of internal limiting membrane (ILM) removal combined with air tamponade in the treatment of macular holes.Methods:The clinical data of 44 patients with macular holes who underwent ILM removal combined with air tamponade at the Affiliated Hospital of Shaoxing University from January 2019 to December 2022 were collected and analyzed retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups based on the presence of VMT prior to surgery: the VMT group and the non-VMT group, with 22 cases in each group. The best corrected visual acuity, closure of the macular hole, continuity of the external limiting membrane, and ellipsoid zone integrity were compared between the two groups during the postoperative follow-up.Results:There was no significant difference in the best corrected visual acuity, the rate of visual acuity improvement, or the rate of macular hole closure between the two groups (all P > 0.05). However, the continuity rate of the external limiting membrane [54.5% (12/22)] and the rate of ellipsoid band integrity [36.4% (8/22)] in the VTM group were significantly higher than those in the non-VTM group [9.1% (2/22), 0; χ2 = 10.47, 7.49, both P < 0.05]. Conclusions:Macular holes caused by VMT show better outcomes after vitrectomy to relieve the vitreous traction. However, for macular holes without remarkable VMT, vitrectomy alone may not yield ideal results. In such cases, it may be necessary to expand the area of ILM removal to adequately relieve the tangential traction.