LAUSR

because other authors and we could recently show that spontaneous resolution of vitreomacular traction (VMT) is indeed much more common than we thought earlier (Dimopoulos et al. 2015). 2) In our subgroup analysis regarding positive predictive parameters, we could show slightly better results than other studies underlining the importance of patient selection. 3) We could not observe any patient with a macular hole profiting from this treatment. This is important because improvement in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in patients suffering from macular holes is time dependent. However, the number of patients with a macular hole is rather small. Other studies showed better closure rates such as the MIVI-Trust studies with a non-surgical closure rate with 43 of 106 (40.6%) (Stalmans et al. 2012). Indeed, recent publications show a various large variance considering the closure rates of full-thickness macular holes, ranging from 2.7% (n = 9) (Moisseiev et al. 2014) to 4 of 15 (27%) (Sharma et al. 2015). The relevance of face-down or no face-position is a factor that might also influence the outcome. However, face-down position was shown to be not of substantial influence on outcome after vitrectomy in macular holes smaller 400 lm (Hu et al. 2016). Therefore, we strongly recommend further investigation in the treatment of full-thickness macular holes with larger sample size. The results of this study especially in the light of new insights into the natural course of VMT stress that meticulous patient selection is the most important factor for a potential success if a decision for an injection with JETREA is chosen.