Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 2, 2025
An Alternative and Validated Injection Method for Accessing the Subretinal Space via a Transcleral Posterior Approach
Published on: December 7, 2016
Displacement of Submacular Hemorrhage Using Subretinal Cocktail Injection versus Pneumatic Displacement: A Real-World
Simon K H Szeto1,2,3, Chi Wai Tsang4,5, Shaheeda Mohamed4,5
1Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China, simonkhszeto@cuhk.edu.hk.
Introduction:
The objective of this study was to compare the outcome of submacular hemorrhage (SMH) displacement using pneumatic displacement with intravitreal expansile gas versus pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with subretinal injection of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agent, and air as primary surgery.
Methods:
Retrospective interventional case series of 63 patients who underwent surgical displacement of SMH secondary to neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) or polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy (PCV) from May 1, 2015, to October 31, 2022. Medical records were reviewed for diagnosis, logMAR visual acuity (VA), central subfield thickness (CST), and postoperative displacement rates and complications up to 12 months after operation.
Results:
The diagnosis was nAMD in 24 (38.1%) and PCV in 39 (61.9%) eyes. There were 40 (63.5%) eyes in the pneumatic displacement group (38 received C3F8, 2 received SF6) and 23 (36.5%) eyes in the subretinal cocktail injection. Mean baseline VA was 1.46 and 1.62, respectively (p = 0.404). The subretinal injection group had more extensive SMH (p = 0.005), thicker CST (1,006.6 μm vs. 780.2 μm, p = 0.012), and longer interval between symptom and operation (10.65 vs. 5.53 days, p < 0.001). The mean postoperative VA at 6 months was 0.67 and 0.91 (p = 0.180) for pneumatic displacement and subretinal injection groups, respectively, though VA was significantly better in the pneumatic group at 12-month visit (0.64 vs. 1.03, p = 0.040). At least 10 mean change in VA were >10 letters gain in both groups up to 12 months. Postoperative CST reduction was greater (625.1 μm vs. 326.5 μm, p = 0.008) and complete foveal displacement (87.0% vs. 37.5%), p < 0.001, odds ratio [OR] = 11.1) and displacement to arcade or beyond (52.5% vs. 17.5%, p = 0.009, OR = 5.15) were more frequent in the subretinal injection group. Two patients with failed pneumatic displacement were successfully treated with subretinal cocktail injection as a second operation.
Conclusion:
Surgical displacement of SMH leads to clinically meaningful improvement in VA. PPV with subretinal cocktail injection is more effective than pneumatic displacement in displacing SMH with similar safety profile despite longer interval before operation, higher CST, and more extensive SMH at baseline. Retinal surgeons could consider this novel technique in cases with thick and extensive SMH or as a rescue secondary operation in selected cases.
