Observational studyScientific reports2024
Fovea-sparing internal limiting membrane peeling with inverted flap technique versus standard internal limiting membrane peeling for symptomatic myopic foveoschisis.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Visual and anatomic outcomes of epiretinal membrane surgery in highly myopic eyes with varying axial lengths.International journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Comparison of the effectiveness of vitrectomy with silicone oil or perfluoropropane tamponade for myopic foveoschisis with foveal detachment.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Lamellar macular hole in highly myopic eyes and insights into its development, evolution, and treatment: a mini-review.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2024Review
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
To study the long-term outcomes of standard ILM peeling and fovea sparing with inverted flap (FSIF) peeling for symptomatic myopic foveoschisis (MF). This retrospective observational study included 36 eyes of 34 consecutive patients who underwent vitrectomy with standard ILM peeling and FSIF peeling for MF between April 2012 and march 2020. The primary outcome measures included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central foveal thickness (CFT) at 1 month and final visit and postoperative development of macular hole. There were 14 eyes in the standard ILM peeling group and 22 eyes and in the FSIF peeling groups with a mean FU of 34.2 months (SD 23.3; min. 12-max. 96) and 27.7 months (SD 14.9; min. 12-max. 63), respectively. In both groups BCVA was not significantly improved at 1 month but improved at last visit from 0.55 ± 0.21 to 0.37 ± 0.29 in the standard ILM peeling group (P = 0.0154) and from 0.57 ± 0.27 to 0.28 ± 0.23 in the FSIF peeling group (P < 0.0001). At 1 month and final visit CMT decreased from 572 ± 183.5 µm to 277.5 ± 95.2 µm and to 250.4 ± 96.1 µm, respectively, in the standard ILM peeling group and from 589.9 ± 189.8 µm to 383 ± 110.1 µm and 162.3 ± 74.8 µm in the FSIF peeling group (P < 0.001 for both groups at both time-points). The preoperative and postoperative BCVA and CMT showed no significant differences between groups. Three of the eyes in the standard ILM peeling group developed postoperative macular hole at 1, 10, 24 months, respectively, and none of the eyes in the FSIF peeling group. Multivariate analysis revealed that a better BCVA was the only independent factor correlated with the final BCVA. In this study, standard ILM peeling and FSIF peeling were both beneficial in improving the anatomy and function of eyes with MF. Postoperative MH may occur up to 2 years after standard peeling and seem effectively prevented by FSIF peeling.
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.