ArticleEye (London, England)2023
Comparison of long-term visual and anatomical outcomes between internal limiting membrane flap and peeling techniques for macular holes with a propensity score analysis.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- ILM flap coverage versus conventional ILM peeling for idiopathic full-thickness macular hole: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of the use of internal limiting membrane flaps versus conventional ILM peeling on post-operative anatomical and visual outcomes in large macular holes.Eye (London, England) · 2024Article
- Observational
- Retinal displacement after surgery for idiopathic macular hole.International journal of ophthalmology · 2024Review
- Glial-Plug Proliferation after Inverted Internal Limiting Membrane Flap Technique for Idiopathic Macular Hole.Journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare visual and anatomical outcomes between internal limiting membrane (ILM) flap (IF) and peeling (IP) techniques for full-thickness macular holes (FTMHs).
methodsA retrospective case series with propensity-score matching (PSM). Patients with a minimum 12 months follow-up were divided into IF and IP groups and matched based on FTMH size and preoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). BCVA and optical coherence tomography (OCT) findings were obtained to assess outer retinal layer integrity, foveal thickness, and foveal displacement.
resultsTwenty-six eyes were included in each group after PSM. The IF group showed significantly greater BCVA after 1 month, its corresponding change from preoperative BCVA, proportions of eyes with ellipsoid zone defects <250 μm after 1 month, and interdigitation zone restoration after 6 and 12 months (P = 0.007, 0.038, 0.048, 0.025, and 0.023, respectively), as well as less foveal gliosis after 1, 3, 6, and 12 months (P = 0.020, 0.017, 0.050, and 0.024, respectively). In the IP group, the mean outer nuclear layer thickness significantly decreased at 3 (P = 0.019) and 12 months (P = 0.016) compared to 1 month, and the foveal displacement toward the optic disc was significant after 1, 3, 6, and 12 months (P = 0.049, 0.006, 0.001, and <0.001, respectively).
conclusionsCompared to IP, IF promoted faster recovery of BCVA and outer retinal layers and was more protective against postoperative foveal thinning and displacement; hence, it should be considered for small and large FTMHs.
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.