ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
A three-step approach versus the inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique in large full thickness macular hole surgery: a comparative study.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2025. 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
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the anatomical and functional outcomes of our novel surgery (a three-step approach) and the conventional inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique (IFT) in treating large full-thickness macular holes (FTMHs).
methodsThis was a retrospective, consecutive, nonrandomized comparative study of patients who underwent either the novel surgery (n = 27, Group A) or IFT (n = 27, Group B). The main outcomes of MH closure rates and the best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-up were compared between the two groups.
resultsAt 6 months postoperatively, MH closure was achieved in 24/27 patients in Group A and 22/27 patients in Group B (88.89% vs. 81.48%, P = 0.704) with U-shaped closure rates being significantly higher in Group A (P = 0.029). The average BCVA at month 6 was 0.69 ± 0.38 (LogMAR) in Group A and 0.91 ± 0.39 in Group B (P = 0.015) with the improvement in BCVA being significantly higher in Group A (0.50 ± 0.59 vs. 0.31 ± 0.59, P = 0.045). The recovery rates of ELM were significantly higher in Group A (P = 0.026).
conclusionsOur three-step approach greatly improves anatomical and functional outcomes compared with IFT. This novel surgery has a dominant advantage in earlier and higher ultimate closure rate, U-type closure rate, and ELM recovery rate, and more importantly, better recovery of BCVA.
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.