ArticleInternational ophthalmology2024
Comparison of the therapeutic effects of lens capsular flap transplantation and autologous retinal transplantation in the management of refractory macular holes.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
purposeTo report the comparison of the therapeutic effects of lens capsular flap transplantation (LCT) and autologous retinal transplantation (ART) in refractory macular hole (MH) treatment.
methodsThirty-one patients (31 eyes) with refractory MH were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups based on the surgical procedures: the LCT group (13 eyes) and the ART group (18 eyes). Patients were monitored for a minimum of 6 months. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), hole closure rate, postoperative central foveolar thickness (CFT), and some complications (e.g. graft loss or dislocation, postoperative retinal detachment, or postoperatively elevated intraocular pressure) were the primary outcome measures.
resultsThe mean preoperative MH diameter was 1104 ± 287 μm in the LCT group and 1066 ± 297 μm in the ART group (t = 0.353, P = 0.727). The MH was closed in 12 patients (92.3%) of the LCT group and 17 patients (94.4%) of the ART group (χ
conclusionsApplications of LCT and ART may both enhance anatomical and visual outcomes in refractory MH cases. The ART group exhibited a more optimal postoperative CFT than the LCT group one.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38980539What 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.