Kumar, AmanMoharana, BruttenduKatoch, DeekshaSingh, Ramandeep2023-08-252023-08-252023-03Kumar Aman, Moharana Bruttendu, Katoch Deeksha, Singh Ramandeep. Papillomacular bundle sparing versus conventional internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic macular hole ?400 µm. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology. 2023 Mar; 71(3): 927-9321998-36890301-4738http://imsear.searo.who.int/handle/123456789/224899Purpose: To compare the outcomes of papillomacular bundle (PMB) sparing internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling (group LP) and conventional ILM peeling (group CP) for treatment of idiopathic macular hole (MH) of ?400 ?m. Methods: Fifteen eyes were included in each group. In group CP, conventional 360° peeling was done, while in group LP, ILM was spared over PMB. The changes in peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (pRNFL) thickness and ganglion cell?inner plexiform layer (GC?IPL) thickness were analyzed at 3 months. Results: MH was closed in all with comparable visual improvement. Postoperatively, retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) was significantly thinner in the temporal quadrant in group CP. GC?IPL was significantly thinner in the temporal quadrants in group LP, whereas it was comparable in group CP. Conclusion: PMB sparing ILM peeling is comparable to conventional ILM peeling in terms of closure rate and visual gain, with the advantage of less retinal damage at 3 months.Ganglion cell?inner plexiform layerILM peelinginternal limiting membranemacular holepapillomacular bundle sparing ILM peelingretinal nerve fiber layersurgeryJournal ArticleIndiaAdvanced Eye Centre, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India