ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Predicting anatomical success and retinal restoration following macular hole surgery using optical coherence tomography parameters.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2025. 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.
- Automated measurement of the minimum macular hole diameter based on optical coherence tomography images.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
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 evaluate the prognostic significance of preoperative optical coherence tomography (OCT) parameters in predicting anatomical closure patterns following idiopathic macular hole (MH) surgery.
methodsIn this retrospective study, 61 eyes of 61 patients who underwent successful MH surgery were analyzed. Preoperatively, OCT-derived linear measurements and calculated indices, including the macular hole index (MHI), tractional hole index (THI), diameter hole index (DHI), hole form factor (HFF), and macular hole closure index (MHCI), as well as newly developed area-based indices such as the macular hole area index (MAI), macular hole tissue area index (MTAI), and macular hole cystoid space area index (MCSAI), were recorded. Anatomical closure was categorized into three types at the postoperative 6-month follow-up based on the integrity of the external limiting membrane (ELM) and ellipsoid zone (EZ): Type 1 (T1) (intact ELM and EZ), Type 2 (T2) (intact ELM and disrupted EZ), and Type 3 (T3) (disrupted ELM and EZ).
resultsAmong closure types, statistically significant differences were observed in OCT parameters, particularly in MHI, THI, DHI, and HFF. T1 closures exhibited significantly higher MHI and HFF compared to T3 (p < 0.05). THI was significantly higher in T1 compared to T2 and T3 (p < 0.05). However, no significant correlations were found between visual acuity gain or postoperative BCVA at 6 months and any of the OCT indices evaluated.
conclusionPreoperative OCT parameters, specifically MHI, HFF, and THI, effectively predicted anatomical closure patterns following MH surgery. However, their prognostic value for visual acuity improvement was limited. The anatomical closure alone does not ensure favorable visual outcomes; therefore, evaluating the restoration of outer retinal layers (ELM and EZ) is crucial.
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.