ArticleScientific reports2024
Outcomes of epiretinal proliferation embedding technique in the surgery for full-thickness macular hole.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- How optical coherence tomography has changed the management of macular holes: A narrative review.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare visual and anatomical outcomes between peeling and embedding of epiretinal proliferation in patients with full-thickness macular holes (FTMH) with epiretinal proliferation (EP), this retrospective cohort study classified patients into two groups based on whether EP was completely peeled (peeling group, n = 25 eyes), or embedded into the hole (embedding group, n = 31 eyes) during surgery. Preoperative characteristics and postoperative outcomes, including best-corrected visual acuity and the length of the disrupted external limiting membrane and ellipsoid zone, were compared. Preoperative features including visual acuity and hole size did not differ between the two groups. All studied eyes achieved closure of the macular hole postoperatively. Visual acuity significantly improved at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively in both groups. The visual acuity 1-month after surgery was better in the embedding group than that in the peeling group (0.28 ± 0.29 vs. 0.50 ± 0.42 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution, P = 0.016), although the difference was not noted after 3 months postoperatively. The embedding group showed shorter disruption of the external limiting membrane than the peeling group postoperatively (62.6 ± 40.2 μm vs. 326.2 ± 463.9 μm at postoperative 12 months, P = 0.045). In conclusion, the embedding technique during surgical repair of a FTMH with EP facilitates recovery of the outer foveal layers and promotes earlier restoration of visual function.
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.