ArticleAdvances in therapy2021
Anatomical and Functional Outcomes in Eyes with Idiopathic Macular Holes that Underwent Surgery Using the Inverted Internal Limiting Membrane (ILM) Flap Technique Versus the Conventional ILM Peeling Technique.
Article in Advances in therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 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
- Article
- Anatomical and functional results after vitrectomy with conventional ILM peeling versus inverted ILM flap technique in large full-thickness macular holes.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2023Article
- The effect comparison of ILM flap and traditional ILM peeling in iMH.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Internal Limiting Membrane Flap Versus Conventional Peeling for Idiopathic Full Thickness Macular Holes: A Registry Analysis of 2990 Eyes.Clinical & experimental ophthalmologyArticle
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
introductionTo evaluate the anatomical and functional outcomes of the inverted internal limiting membrane (ILM) flap technique (IFT) in macular holes (MHs), especially in MHs with a macular hole index (MHI) < 0.5.
methodsThis was a retrospective comparative study. Patients with idiopathic MHs who underwent either the IFT or conventional ILM peeling (CP) were investigated. The main outcomes included the MH closure rate, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and recovery rates of the external limiting membrane (ELM) and ellipsoid zone (EZ) at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively.
resultsForty-eight eyes of 48 patients who underwent the IFT (n = 29, Group A) or CP (n = 19, Group B) were included. The mean minimal diameter was 522.00 ± 208.08 µm. The closure rate was 100.0% in Group A and 94.7% in Group B (P = 0.396). The mean BCVA and EZ and ELM recovery rates improved significantly in both groups postoperatively. No significant differences in BCVA or the EZ or ELM recovery rates were found between the two groups. Of the 39 eyes whose MHI was < 0.5, 25 underwent the IFT, and 14 underwent CP. Comparing the results of the closure rate, BCVA and recovery rates of the EZ and ELM between groups were similar to those in 48 eyes.
conclusionBoth the IFT and CP can achieve a high closure rate, with no significant difference in ordinary idiopathic MHs. The IFT does not seem to achieve better anatomical and functional outcomes than CP. The IFT should be used conservatively in ordinary non-refractory MH surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33689136What 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.