Distinct postoperative anatomical outcomes between lamellar macular holes and epiretinal membrane foveoschisis

Background To compare the postoperative anatomical outcomes between eyes with lamellar macular hole (LMH), epiretinal membrane foveoschisis (ERM-FS) and macular pseudohole (MPH).Methods A retrospective single-centre study, including patients operated for LMH, ERM-FS or MPH, was conducted in a tertiary care centre in Paris, France. LMH eyes underwent vitrectomy with epiretinal proliferation peeling and tamponade, while ERM-FS and MPH eyes underwent ERM peeling without tamponade.Results Eighty-three eyes were included with a mean follow-up of 10.4 months: 16 with LMH, 50 with ERM-FS, and 17 with MPH. The mean preoperative central macular thickness (CMT) in LMH eyes (300 ± 43 µm) was thinner than normal and significantly differed from that in ERM-FS and MPH eyes (425 ± 80 µm vs. 380 ± 81 µm, p Conclusions Lamellar macular hole is a distinct vitreoretinal interface disorder from ERM-FS, with different anatomical postoperative outcomes. Eyes with LMH can improve vision after vitrectomy but its surgical management may differ from that of ERM-FS.