ArticleActa ophthalmologica2025
Vitrectomy in Small idiopathic MAcuLar hoLe (SMALL) study: Internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling.
Article in Acta ophthalmologica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bilateral refractory macular holes related to tamoxifen use and full anatomic restoration of the fovea with autologous retinal graft.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Current Topics in OCT Applications in Vitreoretinal Surgery.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Vitrectomy in Small idiopathic MAcuLar hoLe (SMALL) study: Internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling.Acta ophthalmologica · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare vitrectomy with and without internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling in small idiopathic macular holes.
methodsRetrospective multicentre study including consecutive eyes with ≤250 μm idiopathic macular hole treated with vitrectomy. The primary outcome was hole closure rate. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) change, closure patterns on optical coherence tomography, rates of external limiting membrane (ELM) and ellipsoid zone (EZ) recovery, and rate of complications were also investigated.
resultsIn total, 693 eyes were included. Hole closure rate was 98% in the peeling and 85% in the no-peeling group (p < 0.001). At 12 months, mean BCVA change was 0.38 ± 0.22 logMAR in the peeling and 0.45 ± 0.21 logMAR in the no-peeling group (p = 0.02); 66% versus 80% of eyes had a U-shaped morphology, respectively; EZ recovery rate was 75% and 93%, respectively (p = 0.02). In the no-peeling group, eyes with a vitreomacular traction (VMT) showed a 96% closure rate, comparable to the peeling group (p = 0.40). The incidence of adverse events was similar except for dissociated optic nerve fibre layer (55% in the peeling vs. 9% in the no-peeling group, p < 0.001).
conclusionsIn small idiopathic macular holes, ILM peeling provides a higher closure rate compared to no-peeling; however, if a VMT is present closure rates are comparable. In closed macular holes, the no-peeling technique provides advantages in terms of visual outcome and anatomical recovery.
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.