ArticleBMC ophthalmology2024
Inverted flap technique versus internal limiting membrane insertion for macular hole in eyes with extremely high myopia.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane (ILM) insertion versus inverted ILM flap on myopic macular hole in high myopia.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Current Topics in OCT Applications in Vitreoretinal Surgery.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Controversies, consensuses, and guidelines on macular hole surgery by the Asia-Pacific Vitreo-retina Society (APVRS) and the Asia-Pacific Academy of Professors in Ophthalmology (AAPPO).Eye and vision (London, England) · 2025Review
- Comparison of ILM peeling vs. inverted ILM flap for macular hole closure and visual outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2025Review
- Classification and management of myopic traction maculopathy: a vitrectomy-based consensus from taiwanese experts.International ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Internal Limiting Membrane Flap Enhances Macular Hole Closure Rates in Highly Myopic Eyes: A Case-Control Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Efficacy of combining posterior scleral contraction and intravitreal CInternational journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
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
backgroundTo compare the surgical outcomes of the inverted internal limiting membrane (ILM) flap technique and ILM insertion for macular hole (MH) without retinal detachment in eyes with extremely high myopia.
methodsIn this retrospective study, we analyzed 22 eyes with an axial length ≥ 30.0 mm that had underwent MH surgery between April 2015 and August 2021. The surgical procedures involved either an inverted ILM flap or ILM insertion. The outcomes were compared between the two techniques. Closure of the MH was confirmed by optical coherence tomography (OCT). The best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was measured before and after surgery. Associated complications were documented.
resultsThe median of axial length was 30.64 mm (range, 30.0-34.42). The MH closed in 100% (22/22) eyes and did not recur with a median follow-up of 12.5 months. For the inverted ILM flap technique, the median BCVA improved significantly from 0.80 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) (range, 0.40-2.00) before surgery to 0.70 logMAR (range, 0.09-1.52) after surgery (p = 0.002). In addition, the median of final BCVA was better for the inverted ILM flap than ILM insertion (0.7 logMAR V.S. 1.00 logMAR; p = 0.016).
conclusionsIn eyes with extremely high myopia, despite comparable effects on MH closure for both ILM insertion and the inverted ILM flap, the later technique achieved significantly better visual outcomes.
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.