Facedown Positioning Following Surgery for Large Full-Thickness Macular Hole: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.

This randomized clinical trial examines the effect of postoperative facedown positioning on outcomes for large macular holes. Importance The value of facedown positioning following surgery for large full-thickness macular holes is unknown. Objective To determine whether advice to position facedown postoperatively improves the outcome for large macular holes. Design, Setting, and Participants This randomized, parallel group superiority trial with 1:1 randomization stratified by site with 3 months' follow-up was conducted at 9 sites across the United Kingdom and included participants with an idiopathic full-thickness macular hole of at least 400 mu m minimum linear diameter and a duration of fewer than 12 months. All participants had vitrectomy surgery with peeling of the internal limiting membrane and injection of perfluoropropane (14%) gas, with or without simultaneous surgery for cataract. Interventions Following surgery, participants were randomly advised to position either facedown or face forward for 8 hours daily for 5 days. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was closure of the macular hole determined 3 months following surgery by masked optical coherence tomography evaluation. Secondary outcome measures at 3 months were visual acuity, participant-reported experience of positioning, and quality of life measured by the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire 25. Results A total of 185 participants (45 men [24.3%]; 156 white [84.3%]; 9 black [4.9%]; 10 Asian [5.4%]; median age, 69 years [interquartile range, 64-73 years]) were randomized. Macular hole closure was observed in 90 (85.6%) who were advised to position face forward and 88 (95.5%) advised to position facedown (adjusted odds ratio, 3.15; 95% CI, 0.87-11.41; P = .08). The mean (SD) improvement in best-corrected visual acuity at 3 months was 0.34 (0.69) logMAR (equivalent to 1 Snellen line) in the face-forward group and 0.57 (0.42) logMAR (equivalent to 3 Snellen lines) in the facedown group (adjusted mean difference, 0.22 [95 % CI, 0.05-0.38]; equivalent to 2 Snellen lines); 95% CI, 0.05-0.38; P = .01). The median National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire 25 score was 89 (interquartile range, 76-94) in the facedown group and 87 (interquartile range, 73-93) in the face-forward group (mean [SD] change on a logistic scale, 0.08 [0.26] face forward and 0.11 [0.25] facedown; adjusted mean [SD] difference on a logistic scale, 0.02; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.07; P = .41). Conclusions and Relevance The results do not prove that facedown positioning following surgery is more likely to close large macular holes compared with facing forward but do support the possibility that visual acuity outcomes may be superior. Question Is the closure of large macular holes improved by advising facedown positioning postsurgery? Findings In this randomized clinical trial of 185 participants, macular hole closure in those advised to position facing down was not superior to macular hole closure in those facing forward. Meaning The results do not prove that facedown positioning following surgery is more likely to close large macular holes.