Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28161828›Full record

Trial reportGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2017

Macular hole closure patterns associated with different internal limiting membrane flap techniques.

Tommaso Rossi, Aldo Gelso, Ciro Costagliola, Carlandrea Trillo, Annalisa Costa, Carlo Gesualdo, Guido Ripandelli

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04135638 (Comparing Retinal Sensitivity and Fixation Stability of Inverted ILM-flap Techniques Variants for Macular Hole Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04135638 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Comparing Retinal Sensitivity and Fixation Stability of Inverted ILM-flap Techniques Variants for Macular Hole Surgery

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of MoliseRan2019 to 2020Enrolled28ConditionsMacular HolesArmsCover Group, Fill Group
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 87 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Update on surgical management of complex macular holes: a review.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2021
    Review
  19. Observational
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Tommaso RossiIRCCS Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria San Martino, IST, Genoa, Italy. tommaso.rossi@usa.net.
Aldo GelsoUO oculistica Clinica Villa dei Fiori, Acerra, Napoli, Italy.
Ciro CostagliolaCattedra di Oftalmologia, Università degli Studi del Molise, Campobasso, Italy.
Carlandrea TrilloIRCCS Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria San Martino, IST, Genoa, Italy.
Annalisa CostaIRCCS Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria San Martino, IST, Genoa, Italy.
Carlo GesualdoUO oculistica Clinica Villa dei Fiori, Acerra, Napoli, Italy.
Guido RipandelliG.B. Bietti Foundation ONLUS - IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Ospedale Policlinico San Martino · ITFondazione G.B. Bietti · ITUniversity of Molise · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the anatomic and functional outcome of two variants of the inverted internal limiting membrane (I-ILM) flap technique for idiopathic macular holes (IMH) larger than 400 µm.

methodsTwenty-seven consecutive patients undergoing PPV for IMH were randomly assigned to different variants of I-ILM technique: the Cover group included 14 patients in which the I-ILM was folded upside-down over the MH as a single layer while the Fill group enrolled 13 patients in which the I-ILM was folded within the MH in multiple layers.

resultsMH closed in 12/14 Cover and in 13/13 Fill eyes (84.6 vs. 100%, p = 0.14; n.s.). Vision at 1 month was Snellen 0.44 ± 0.17 vs. 0.28 ± 0.21 (p = 0.05) and 0.48 ± 0.20 vs. 0.37 ± 0.25 (n.s.) at 3 months. IS/OS line interruption width was 463 ± 385 vs. 602 ± 210 µm, respectively, at 1 month (n.s.) and 602 ± 210 vs. 563 ± 209 µm at 3 months (n.s.). The Cover group showed outer retina cystic changes more often (p < 0.01). MH over 700 µm closed in 0/2 and in 2/2 cases, respectively, in the Cover and Fill groups (0.045).

conclusionsCover and Fill I-ILM techniques allowed similar closure rates and post-operative vision at 3 months. The Cover group showed better anatomical restoration and vision at 1 month while the Fill technique might be more efficient in closing larger MHs.

Indexed as

Surgical FlapsVisual AcuityAgedBasement MembraneFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleProspective StudiesRetinaRetinal PerforationsTomography, Optical CoherenceTreatment OutcomeVitrectomyInverted internal limiting membrane flapMacular holesPars plana vitrectomy

Identifiers

PMID28161828
OpenAlexW2584294989

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.