ArticleArquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia2022
Standard internal limiting membrane peeling versus internal limiting membrane abrasion technique for primary epiretinal membrane surgery.
Article in Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pros and cons of internal limiting membrane peeling during epiretinal membrane surgery: a randomised clinical trial with microperimetry (PEELING).The British journal of ophthalmology · 2024Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposesThe purpose of this study is to compare the standard inner limiting membrane peeling technique to the inner limiting membrane abrasion technique with respect to visual outcomes and central retinal thickness in the primary epiretinal membrane surgery.
methodsA total of 59 eyes from 57 epiretinal membrane patients were separated into two groups including the standard inner limiting membrane peeling group and the inner limiting membrane peeling with abrasion technique group. At 6, 12, and 24 months of follow-up, the mean alteration in best-corrected visual acuity and central retinal thickness were assessed for each group.
resultsThe study includes 32 (54%) standard inner peeling and 27 (46%) inner limiting membrane peeling with abrasion technique patients. The mean preoperative logMAR best-corrected visual acuity for the standard inner limiting membrane peeling and inner limiting membrane peeling with abrasion groups was 0.73 (±0.29) and 0.61 (±0.3) respectively. At 6, 12, and 24 months of follow-up, the best-corrected visual acuity improved significantly in each group. At each period of observation, the alteration in best-corrected visual acuity was not statistically significant (p=0.54, p=0.52, p=0.67). When comparing the alterations between the standard inner limiting membrane peeling and inner limiting membrane peeling with abrasion technique groups at 6 months (p=0.26) and 24 months (p=0.06), no statistically significant differences were observed, but they were statistically different at 12 months (p=0.03), reflecting a greater reduction in central retinal thickness for the inner limiting membrane peeling with abrasion technique group after one year.
conclusionAbrasion of the inner limiting membrane with a diamond-dusted membrane scraper during epiretinal membrane surgery demonstrates similar effectiveness to the standard inner limiting membrane peeling technique. At 12 months, retinal thinning was found to be more significant in inner limiting membrane peeling with abrasion technique patients in terms of central retinal thickness values. As a result, it may be argued that the inner limiting membrane abrasion technique eliminates the inner limiting membrane and related structures more effectively while inflicting less retinal damage.
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.