ArticleInternational ophthalmology2025
Risk factors and efficacy of different intravitreal treatment options for symptomatic focal vitreomacular traction with or without full-thickness macular hole.
Article in International 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo report the efficacy and risk profile of intravitreal injections of Ocriplasmin (IVO) versus Perfluoropropane (PVL) in patients with symptomatic focal vitreomacular traction (VMTS) with or without full-thickness macular hole (FTMH < 400 μm).
methodsNineteen patients with VMTS received 0.3 ml perfluoropropane, and 68 patients received Ocriplasmin. Primary success criteria included resolution of vitreomacular traction (VMT) and closure of FTMH < 400 μm. Microstructural changes were evaluated using SD OCT for macular hole size, macular edema, subretinal fluid, ellipsoid zone (EZ), and external limiting membrane (ELM).
resultsIn the PVL group, 78.92% experienced VMT resolution. None of the FTMH < 400 μm closed with PVL, but all were closed with subsequent pars plana vitrectomy (ppV). New FTMH developed in 7.1% and rhegmatogenous retinal detachment in 5.3%. EZ/ELM changes occurred in 31.6%. In the IVO group, 70.6% achieved VMT resolution. Of 22 patients with FTMH, 45.6% had closure after IVO, with 12 out of 25 needing ppV. New FTMH occurred in 6.5% and retinal detachment in 4.4%. EZ/ELM changes were observed in 16.2%.
conclusionBoth PVL and IVO showed similar VMT resolution rates. PVL was less effective in closing FTMH and had higher side effects compared to IVO. In the presence of retinal pathologies, PVL is preferable to IVO.
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.