ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
Macular Hole Surgery as a Historical Perspective.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the outcomes of macular hole (MH) surgery as a historical perspective after its inception in 1991. Patients and Methods: Retrospective review of 1032 eyes of 949 patients with an idiopathic MH who were followed for at least one year after the initial surgery. All surgeries were performed from 1990 to 2016 by one surgeon (NO) and included phacovitrectomy for patients of ≥40-years-of-age, a removal of the posterior hyaloid and epiretinal membrane, and SF6 gas tamponade with a 1-week face-down. After 1998, internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling became the conventional procedure. All surgeries were classified into four periods based on the year of the initial surgery. The first period was 1990~1995 (n = 222), the second period was 1996~1999 (n=327), the third period was 2000~2004 (n = 234), and the last period was 2005~2016 (n=249). Results: The mean follow-up period was 81.3, 79.8, 88.4, and 77.3 months; hole size was 0.33, 0.28, 0.25, and 0.24 disk diameter; hole duration was 15.1, 10.6, 8.2, and 6.1 months; the decimal visual acuity (VA) was 0.13, 0.15, 0.17, and 0.19. The initial closure rate was 61.3, 78.0, 96.6, and 96.4%. The final decimal visual acuity was 0.33, 0.50, 0.66, and 0.79. The rate of a final decimal VA of 0.5 or better was 48.2, 66.4, 82.1, and 88.8%. The rate of a final decimal visual acuity of 1.0 or more was 17.6, 29.3, 43.6, and 58.2%. Multiple regression analyses showed that hole duration and ILM peeling were significantly associated with both the anatomic and functional outcomes. Conclusion: The favorable outcomes of MH surgery was primarily achieved by earlier surgery and conventional ILM peeling. Favorable results might be obtained using only conventional ILM 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.