Observational studyPloS one2024
Comparison of stereopsis and foveal microstructure after internal limiting membrane peeling and inverted internal limiting membrane flap techniques in patients with macular hole.
Observational study in PloS one, 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.
- Assessment of paracentral stereopsis using a new method with the binocular open perimeter in patients with glaucoma.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Membrane flex loop-assisted peeling and giant flap creation for primary repair of idiopathic macular holes: a pilot study.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2025Article
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare stereopsis and foveal microstructure after internal limiting membrane peeling and inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique in patients with macular hole.
designRetrospective observational study.
methodsSixty-six patients with macular hole were included, of whom 41 underwent 25-gauge pars-plana vitrectomy with complete internal limiting membrane peeling (Peeling group) and 25 with the inverted flap technique (Inverted group). We evaluated stereopsis using the Titmus Stereo Test and the TNO stereo test, best-corrected visual acuity, macular hole closure rate, and foveal microstructure with optical coherence tomography before and at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery.
main outcome measuresStereopsis and foveal microstructure.
resultsPreoperatively, no difference was observed in the base and minimum diameters of macular hole, Titmus Stereo Test score, TNO stereo test score, and best-corrected visual acuity between the Peeling and Inverted groups. The macular hole closure rate in the Peeling and Inverted groups were 97.6% and 100%, respectively, with no significant difference between groups. At 12 months postoperatively, Titmus Stereo Test score (2.1 ± 0.4 in the peeling and 2.2 ± 0.4 in the inverted groups), TNO stereo test score (2.3 ± 0.4 and 2.2± 0.5), and best-corrected visual acuity (0.20 ± 0.18 and 0.24 ± 0.25) were not significantly different between groups (p = 0.596, 0.332, respectively). The defect of the external limiting membrane was more common in the Inverted group than in the Peeling group at 6 months after surgery (5.4 vs. 28.0%; p < 0.05). No statistically significant inter-group differences were noted in the ellipsoid zone defect ratio throughout the follow-up period.
conclusionsThere was no difference in postoperative stereopsis nor foveal microstructure between the internal limiting membrane peeling group and the inverted group in patients with macular hole.
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.