ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2019
Incomplete fluid-air exchange technique for idiopathic macular hole surgery.
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo explore an improved procedure involving incomplete fluid-air exchange for idiopathic macular hole (IMH), and the closure rate, visual function, and the visual field of macular holes (MHs) were evaluated.
methodsThis prospective randomized controlled study, included 40 eyes of 40 patients with IMH who were treated with pars plana vitrectomy and peeling of the internal limiting membrane. They were grouped by random digital table. Twenty-one eyes underwent incomplete fluid-air exchange (IFA) and 19 eyes underwent traditional complete fluid-air exchange (CFA) as the control group. Outcomes included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), intraocular pressure, and optical coherence tomography, light adaptive electroretinography, and visual field evaluations.
resultsAll MHs <400 µm were successfully closed. BCVAs before and 6mo after surgery were 0.82±0.41 logMAR and 0.28±0.17 logMAR in IFA group and 0.86±0.34 logMAR and 0.34±0.23 logMAR in CFA group, respectively. The electroretinogram analysis of patients in IFA group revealed increases in b-wave amplitudes at 1, 3, and 6mo after surgery. Additionally, patients in IFA group showed an amplitude increase of 28.6% from baseline at 6mo (
conclusionIFA is a reliable method that offers comparable closure rate to CFA and facilitates improvements in visual function.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.