ArticleCase reports in ophthalmology
Removal of Subfoveal Massive Hard Exudates through an Intentional Macular Hole in Patients with Diabetic Maculopathy: A Report of Three Cases.
Article in Case reports in ophthalmology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ten-Year Follow-Up of Visual Outcomes After Vitrectomy for Clinically Non-Tractional Diabetic Macular Edema.Cureus · 2025Article
- Surgical Drainage of Large Macular Cystoid Spaces in Coats Disease.Journal of vitreoretinal diseasesArticle
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
Recently, good postoperative visual acuity has been reported using surgical removal of hard exudates (HEs) through an intentional macular hole (iMH). We report 3 cases of subfoveal HE secondary to diabetic maculopathy (DM) treated with HE removal via an iMH. Pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) was performed in three eyes of 3 patients with subfoveal HE secondary to DM. In all eyes, after PPV, internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling of the lower half was performed within the range of papilla diameter 2 centered on the fovea, leaving the upper half for subsequent inverted ILM flap technique. Then, by grabbing the inner layer of the fovea using ILM forceps, an iMH was created. The HE was then flushed from the iMH with a balanced salt solution as much as possible. Finally, the inverted ILM flap technique was performed using the upper half of the ILM that was left during the previous maneuver. At the end of the surgery, the eyes were flushed with 50 mL of 20% sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) after the fluid-air exchange of the vitreous cavity. After surgery, HE was adequately removed, iMH was completely closed, and visual acuity improved in all eyes. This surgical procedure did not cause a central scotoma but rather improved the central sensitivity of the visual field in all eyes. No serious surgery-related complications occurred. In conclusion, HE removal via an iMH hole can be one of the treatment options for patients with subfoveal HE secondary to DM.
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.