ArticleInternational journal of retina and vitreous2024
Modified ILM flap techniques versus classical inverted ILM flap technique for large macular holes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in International journal of retina and vitreous, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMacular holes (MHs) constitute a vitreoretinal interface disorder that occurs when structural abnormalities in the fovea lead to impaired central vision. The standard treatment for MHs is mainly surgical. Using an inverted internal limiting membrane (ILM) flap has enhanced the success rates of MH surgeries. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the classical inverted ILM flap technique to modified ILM flap techniques for managing large MHs.
methodsWe searched Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the classic inverted ILM flap technique to modified ILM flap techniques as initial surgical treatment of eyes with large MHs of more than 400 microns. We sought to evaluate the following outcomes: (1) MH closure. (2) Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). (3) Foveal closure type (4) Rate of ellipsoid zone (EZ) defects and external limiting membrane (ELM) defects. The standardized mean difference (SMD) was used to represent continuous outcomes, while the risk ratio (RR) was used to represent dichotomous outcomes.
resultsFour RCTs that enrolled 220 participants were deemed eligible. The analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in MH closure between both groups (95% CI: 0.20, 7.96; P = 0.81). No statistically significant differences in mean BCVA were found at 1 and 3 months between both groups (SMD: 0.04; 95% CI: -0.16, 0.23; P = 0.70 and SMD: -0.167; 95%CI: -1.240, 0.906; P = 0.760, respectively). In addition, there were no significant differences between the two groups in the pattern of foveal closure, namely U-shape, V-shape, and flap open at 3, 6, and 12 months (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.67, 1.12; P = 0.28, RR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.58, 1.61; P = 0.89, and RR: 1.95, 95% CI: 0.26, 14.50; P = 0.51, respectively). Finally, the analysis showed no statistically significant difference in both groups' EZ and ELM defect rates at 3, 6, and 12 months (RR: 1; 95% CI: 0.85; 1.18: P = 1 and RR: 1.14; 95% CI: 0.90, 1.45; P = 0.27).
conclusionMacular holes (MHs) constitute a vitreoretinal interface disorder that occurs when structural abnormalities in the fovea lead to impaired central vision. The standard treatment for MHs is mainly surgical. Using an inverted internal limiting membrane (ILM) flap has enhanced the success rates of MH surgeries. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the classical inverted ILM flap technique to modified ILM flap techniques for managing large MHs.
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.