ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
Fovea-Sparing Internal Limiting Membrane (ILM) Peeling and ILM Plug: A Novel Approach for Managing Optic Disc Pit Maculopathy.
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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Retrospective long-term surgical results of internal limiting membrane-sparing vitrectomy for pediatric optic disc pit maculopathy.Translational pediatrics · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of fovea-sparing internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling combined with ILM plug placement in patients with optic disc pit maculopathy (ODP-M). Patients and Methods: This retrospective study included seven eyes from seven patients diagnosed with ODP-M, treated with fovea-sparing ILM peeling and ILM plug placement. All patients underwent pars plana vitrectomy (PPV), with either SF6 gas or silicone oil used as tamponade. Outcome measures included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), retinal reattachment, and resolution of retinoschitic lesions (RL). Data were collected at baseline and during follow-ups at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Results: The mean age of the study patients was 31 (± 13.14) years, with a marginal male preponderance (M: F = 4:3). All patients achieved complete retinal reattachment, with a significant reduction in CMT from 503.57 (± 154.74) µm preoperatively to 286.29 (± 22.43) µm at 12 months ( Conclusion: Fovea-sparing ILM peeling combined with ILM plug placement resulted in favorable anatomical and functional outcomes for ODP-M patients, with a 100% retinal reattachment rate and significant CMT reduction. This technique offers a viable alternative to conventional approaches, preserving foveal architecture while providing a mechanical barrier to fluid accumulation.
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.