Trial reportScientific reports2020
Inverted ILM-flap techniques variants for macular hole surgery: randomized clinical trial to compare retinal sensitivity and fixation stability.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2020. 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 12 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.
Comparing Retinal Sensitivity and Fixation Stability of Inverted ILM-flap Techniques Variants for Macular Hole Surgery
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Temporal inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique for myopic macular hole retinal detachment reconstruction.The Journal of international medical research · 2024Article
- Biofeedback Training after Successful Inverted Internal Limiting Membrane (ILM)-Flap Technique for High Myopic Macular Hole.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Pars plana vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane flap versus pars plana vitrectomy with conventional internal limiting membrane peeling for large macular hole.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Review
- Microperimetric evaluation and predictive factors of visual recovery after successful inverted internal limiting membrane-flap technique for macular hole in high myopic eyes.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Evaluation of quality and utility of YouTube vitreoretinal surgical videos.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2022Article
- Effect of inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique on small-medium size macular holes.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Comparative Study of Conventional Inverted ILM Flap Covering and ILM Flap Filling Technique in Idiopathic Macular Hole Treatment: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.Journal of ophthalmology · 2022Review
- Macular Holes: Main Clinical Presentations, Diagnosis, and Therapies.Journal of ophthalmology · 2022Review
- Update on surgical management of complex macular holes: a review.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2021Review
- Autologous Lens Capsule Flap Transplantation for Persistent Macular Holes.Journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Inverted Internal Limiting Membrane Flap Technique: Is It the Best Option for Macular Holes?Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2021Review
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To report closure rate, Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA), Retinal Sensitivity (RS) and Fixation Stability (FS) of idiopathic Macular Holes (MH) randomized to Cover Group (CG) or Fill Group (FG) of the Inverted Internal Limiting Membrane (ILM) flap surgical procedure. Twenty-eight patients were randomized (1:1) to receive a vitrectomy with either Cover or Fill ILM flap technique. All patients underwent BCVA, RS and FS assessment at baseline, 1-month and 3-months after surgery. MH closed in all patients. BCVA rose from 20/100 (baseline) to 20/33 (1-month) in both groups, to 20/28 in CG versus 20/33 in FG (3-months) (p < 0.05). The central 4° RS rose from 11.5 and 12 dB to 19 and 19.5 dB (1-month) and to 22 and 20 dB (3-months), respectively, in CG and FG (p < 0.001). The central 10° RS rose from 11 and 15 dB to 22 and 20 dB (1-month) and to 23 and 20 dB (3-months), respectively, in CG and FG (p < 0.001). FS increased significantly more in CG. CG improved significantly more than FG in terms of BCVA, RS and FS. The average MH diameter was relatively small (397 µm); larger MHs may behave differently.Trial registration: Trial Registry: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Identifier: NCT04135638. Registration date 22/10/2019.
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.