ArticleRomanian journal of ophthalmology
Recalcitrant Fovea-Involving Macular Fold After Uneventful Epiretinal Membrane Surgery.
Article in Romanian journal of ophthalmology. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To describe a case of recalcitrant fovea-involving macular folds developing after uncomplicated epiretinal membrane (ERM) peeling and causing intractable metamorphopsia. Methods: Case report. Results: A 22-year-old man with a stage 3 ERM, visual acuity (VA) of 20/100, and a history of scleral buckle underwent pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling. One week after surgery, VA dropped to 20/125 with worsened metamorphopsia. Ophthalmoscopy revealed a fovea-involving full-thickness macular fold, with photoreceptor outer segments in opposition. After 3 weeks of follow-up without improvement, PPV with induction of localized retinal detachment was performed, combined with retinal massage. Moreover, perfluorocarbon liquid (PFCL) was employed to stretch the retina. Nevertheless, the macular fold and metamorphopsia were unchanged, even one year after the first surgery. Discussion: We hypothesize that, due to the highly contracted ERM, the retina may have separated from the RPE during peeling and folded over in the first postoperative days. Concurrently, incorrect patient positioning under air tamponade might have contributed to the vertical orientation of the fold. Conclusion: Even if macular folds after ERM surgery are rare, prompt surgical treatment rather than watchful waiting should be considered to prevent permanent functional impairment.
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.