Macular hole Delphi consensus statement (MHOST)

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  • Filippo Confalonieri
  • Hanna Haave
  • Susanne Binder
  • Agnieszka Monika Bober
  • Ragnheidur Bragadottir
  • Thomas Bærland
  • Rowan Faber
  • Vegard Forsaa
  • Julio J. Gonzalez-Lopez
  • Andrea Govetto
  • Marta Haugstad
  • Domagoj Ivastinovic
  • Neža Čokl Jenko
  • Simona Delia Nicoară
  • Kuldar Kaljurand
  • Igor Kozak
  • Anders Kvanta
  • Lyubomyr Lytvynchuk
  • Zofia Anna Nawrocka
  • Sanja Petrovic Pajic
  • Mojca Globočnik Petrovič
  • Liga Radecka
  • Matus Rehak
  • Mario R. Romano
  • Andrii Ruban
  • Martynas Speckauskas
  • Ingar Stene-Johansen
  • Zbynek Stranak
  • Angela Thaler
  • Ioannis Theocharis
  • Zoran Tomic
  • Xiaohe Yan
  • Muhamet Zekolli
  • Burim Zhuri
  • Ljubo Znaor
  • Beata Eva Petrovski
  • Xhevat Lumi
  • Goran Petrovski

Purpose: To derive a Delphi method-based consensus for the surgical management of Full Thickness Macular Hole (FTMH) and Lamellar Macular Hole (LMH). Methods: 37 expert VR surgeons from 21 mainly European countries participated in Delphi method-based questionnaire for diagnosis and treatment of FTMHs and LMHs. Results: A total of 36 items were rated in round 1 by 37 participants, of which 10 items achieved consensus: intraoperative verification of PVD; clinical superiority of OCT-based FTMH classification; practical ineffectiveness of ocriplasmin; circular 360° ILM peeling for small macular holes; use of regular surgical technique for the size of the hole in concomitant retinal detachment; performing complete vitrectomy; SF6 gas as preferred tamponade; cataract surgery if crystalline lens is mildly/moderately opaque; removal of both ILM and LHEP in LMH surgery. In round 2, 18 items with moderate consensus (45-70% agreement) in round 1 were rated by 35 participants. Final consensus was reached in 35% of questions related to both diagnosis and surgical procedures. Conclusions: This Delphi study provides valuable information about the consensus/disagreement on different scenarios encountered during FTMH and LMH management as a guide tosurgical decision-making. High rate of disagreement and/or variable approaches still exist for treating such relatively common conditions.

Original languageEnglish
JournalActa Ophthalmologica
Volume101
Issue number7
Pages (from-to)815-825
ISSN1755-375X
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2023

    Research areas

  • DELPHI consensus statement, Full thickness macular hole (FTMH), Lamellar Macular Hole (LMH), surgical decision-making, surgical management

ID: 357512254