ArticleDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2021
[Large macular hole-Always a poor prognosis?]
Article in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Critical analysis of macular hole repair techniques: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis comparing internal limiting membrane flap and internal limiting membrane peeling for any size of macular hole.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Pooled it
- [iOCT in clinical use : Correlation of intraoperative morphology and postoperative visual outcome in patients with full thickness macular hole].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2022Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAge, preoperative visual acuity and macular hole size have been reported to be prognostic markers for the postoperative outcome in patients with full thickness macular holes (FTMH).
objectiveA retrospective observational clinical study was performed in order to compare the postoperative course after conventional internal limiting membrane peeling (c-ILM) and inverted flap ILM peeling (i-ILM). Patients with i‑ILM peeling had preoperatively a significantly larger macular hole MATERIAL AND
methodsIn this study 45 consecutive patients with a full thickness macular hole (FTMH) were divided into two groups (c-ILM vs. i ILM) and evaluated with respect to the postoperative best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and retinal morphology. Using spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) the integrity of the outer retinal layers, external limiting membrane (ELM), ellipsoid zone (EZ) and outer photoreceptor outer segments (OS) were analyzed postoperatively for at least 6 months.
resultsThe preoperative aperture in the i‑ILM group was significantly larger (i-ILM = 408.4 µm, SD = 157.5 µm; c‑ILM = 287.4 µm, SD = 104.9 µm; p = 0.01). The preoperative BCVA and postoperative BCVA after 1 month were significantly better in the group with c‑ILM peeling (p = 0.03 and p = 0.001). The postoperative BCVA after at least 6 months showed no significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.24). The ELM was the first of the outer retinal layers to show postoperative recovery in both groups.
conclusionUsing the i‑ILM peeling technique in this consecutive series it seemed to be possible to achieve a similar postoperative visual outcome in patients with a large FTMH as for patients with a smaller FTMH operated on with the c‑ILM peeling technique.
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.