ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2022
Pre-operative optical coherence tomography predictors: Do they hold any relevance in the era of inverted internal limiting membrane flap in large macular holes?
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2022. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Prediction of long-term visual outcome of idiopathic full-thickness macular hole surgery using optical coherence tomography parameters that estimate potential preoperative photoreceptor damage.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024Article
- Indistinct retinal outer layers in the walls of the idiopathic full-thickness macular hole - A potential predictive biomarker for surgical outcomes.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022Observational
- Commentary: Inverted internal limiting membrane flap for large macular holes: Evaluation of new surgical techniques need new macular hole closure classification systems.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To study the relevance of preoperative OCT predictors in large macular holes (MH) treated using the inverted ILM peel technique. Methods: Prospective study of 95 patients undergoing vitrectomy for large MH between January 2019 and December 2020 was performed by dividing the patients into groups depending on various quantitative parameters and indices of MH such as base diameter (BD), hole form factor (HFF), macular hole index (MHI), diameter hole index (DHI), and tractional hole index (THI) by using parameters such as minimal hole diameter, hole height, nasal and temporal arm lengths. Depending upon the duration of symptoms, patients were divided into three groups: <3 months, 3-6 months, and >6 months. Anatomical success rate, type of closure, and postoperative vision gain were analyzed in relation to the abovementioned diameters, indices, and duration to see if any significance existed. Results: The mean age of patients included in the study was 60.48 ± 13.88 years, with female preponderance (males: females = 37:58). Change in logMAR was statistically significant individually with all studied parameters (P < 0.0001) without influence of size of hole and other indices. BD and DHI levels showed significant association with type of closure as indicated by P values of 0.017 and 0.048, respectively. Duration of symptoms showed no significance in terms of anatomical and functional success. Conclusion: OCT predictors of MH success seem to have lost relevance with inverted flap surgeries as 100% anatomical success is achieved with this technique, with 95.78% (91/95) achieving type 1 closure with statistically significant equivalent functional gain across the indices with no effect of duration of symptoms.
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.