ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2023
Comparative study of conventional internal limiting membrane peeling versus temporal inverted internal limiting membrane flap for large macular hole treatment.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF AMNIOTIC MEMBRANE TRANSPLANTATION IN VITRECTOMY FOR EXTRA-LARGE OR LONG-STANDING MACULAR HOLES: A Prospective Clinical Study.Retina (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2026Observational
- ILM flap coverage versus conventional ILM peeling for idiopathic full-thickness macular hole: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the anatomical, morphological, and functional outcomes of the conventional internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling versus temporal inverted ILM flap technique for large full-thickness macular holes (FTMHs). Methods: Sixty eyes of 60 patients with a minimum base diameter >600 μm were included in this retrospective interventional study. Patients were divided into conventional ILM peeling (Group 1) and temporal inverted ILM flap (Group 2) groups. The hole closure rate, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), ellipsoid zone (EZ), and external limiting membrane (ELM) defects were analyzed at baseline and 6 months after surgery. Results: Hole closure was achieved in 24/32 (75.0%) cases of Group 1 and 27/28 (96.4%) cases of Group 2 (P = 0.029). The mean BCVA (logMAR) changed from 1.23 ± 0.47 to 0.70 ± 0.29 logMAR in Group 1 and from 1.03 ± 0.36 to 0.49 ± 0.24 logMAR in Group 2 at 6 months (P < 0.001 in both cases). U-shaped closure was observed in 5 (15.6%) eyes in Group 1 and 19 (67.9%) eyes in Group 2 (P < 0.001). The total restoration rates of ELM and EZ were significantly higher in the temporal inverted ILM flap group (P = 0.002, P = 0.001, respectively). Conclusion: The study results suggested that the FTMH closure rate, recovery of the outer retinal layers, and, consequently, the post-operative BCVA were better with the temporal inverted ILM flap technique than with the conventional ILM peeling for larger than 600 μm macular holes.
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.