ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2020
Internal limiting membrane dragging and peeling: a modified technique for macular holes closure surgery.
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Effect of internal limiting membrane surgical techniques on the idiopathic and refractory management of macular holes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2024Review
- Spotlight on the Internal Limiting Membrane Technique for Macular Holes: Current Perspectives.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Review
- Negative effects of enlarging internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic macular hole surgery.International journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo introduce a modified technique of internal limiting membrane (ILM) centripetal dragging and peeling to treat idiopathic macular hole (IMH) and to observe the ILM-retina adhesive forces.
methodsTwenty-six consecutive patients with stage 3 to 4 IMH and followed up at least six months were enrolled. All patients underwent complete par plana vitrectomy, ILM dragging and peeling, fluid and gas exchange, 15% C
resultsThe mean diameter of IMH was 524±148 µm (range: 201-683 µm), with 21 cases (80.8%) greater than 400 µm. ILM dragging and peeling were successfully performed in all cases. Most of the ILM-retina adhesive forces are severe (42.3%, 11/26), followed by mild (38.5%, 10/26), and moderate (19.2%, 5/26). The mean follow-up duration was 21.2±6.1mo. The IMH was closed in 25 (96.3%) eyes. Visual acuity (logMAR) improved significantly from 1.2±0.6 preoperatively to 0.7±0.5 postoperatively (
conclusionPreexisting ILM-retina adhesive force is found in IMH patients. With assistance of this force, this modified technique may help to release the IMH edges and improve the closure rate of large IMH.
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.