Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32910308›Full record

ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2020

Macular hole closure patterns: an updated classification.

Tommaso Rossi, Daniela Bacherini, Tomaso Caporossi, Serena Telani, Danilo Iannetta, Stanislao Rizzo, Stavros N Moysidis, Nicole Koulisis, Tamer H Mahmoud, Guido Ripandelli

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Biological ultrathin amniotic membrane flap to close refractory macular holes associated with high myopia.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

10 authors.

Tommaso RossiIRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino - UOC Oculistica, Largo Rosanna Benzi 2, 16100, Genoa, Italy. tommaso.rossi@usa.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0332-7757
Daniela BacheriniOspedale Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Tomaso CaporossiOspedale Careggi, Florence, Italy.
Serena TelaniIRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino - UOC Oculistica, Largo Rosanna Benzi 2, 16100, Genoa, Italy.
Danilo IannettaArcispedale Santa Maria Nuova, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Stanislao RizzoPoliclinico Agostino Gemelli, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Stavros N MoysidisThe Retina Partners, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Nicole KoulisisThe Retina Partners, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Tamer H MahmoudAssociated Retinal Consultants, PC, Department of Ophthalmology, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Royal Oak, MI, USA.
Guido RipandelliIRCCS Fondazione G.B. Bietti ONLUS, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe classification of macular hole closure patterns (MHCPs) currently relies on time domain OCT allowing only "open" and "closed" statuses or is based on inner foveal contour shape. Both classification types give no information on retinal layer reconstitution. Novel sophisticated surgical techniques lead to previously unknown MHCPs, outdating existing classifications and urging new ones. The purpose of the present study is to introduce a new classification allowing proper description of all MHCPs resulting from newer surgeries and based on the restoration of retinal layers.

methodsRetrospective analysis of patients undergoing MH surgery with five different surgical techniques was performed. MHCPs were classified according to spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). Type 0: open MH (0A: flat margin, 0B: elevated, 0C: oedematous); type 1: closed MHs (1A: reconstitution all retinal layers; 1B interruption of the external layers; 1C interruption of internal layers); type 2: MH closed with autologous or heterologous filling tissue interrupting the normal foveal layered anatomy (2A: filling tissue through all layers; 2B reconstitution of normal inner retinal layers; 2C reconstitution of normal outer retinal layers; 2D H-shaped bridging of filling tissue).

resultsClosure rate was 95.2% (241/253). Surgical technique and vision correlated to closure pattern (p < 0.001). Type 1 MHCPs had the best post-operative visual acuity (VA) compared with type 2 and type 0 (p < 0.001). MHCPs 1A and 1C performed better than all others. MHCP at months 1 and 3 changed in 42/254 (16.5%) and remained stable in 212/254 (83.5%). Improvement in vision was higher in eyes with shifting closure pattern (0.57 ± 0.33 vs 0.51 ± 0.48 logMAR; p 0.021).

conclusionMHCP classification based on retinal layer restoration properly comprises post-operative anatomic morphologies. MHCPs correlate the surgical technique and post-operative visual outcomes.

Indexed as

Retinal PerforationsBasement MembraneFovea CentralisHumansRetrospective StudiesTomography, Optical CoherenceVitrectomyAmniotic membrane implantAutologous retina implantAutologous retinal transplantationClosure patternGraftHuman amniotic membraneInternal limiting membraneMacular holePars plana vitrectomy

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.