ReviewEye and vision (London, England)2025
Controversies, consensuses, and guidelines on macular hole surgery by the Asia-Pacific Vitreo-retina Society (APVRS) and the Asia-Pacific Academy of Professors in Ophthalmology (AAPPO).
Review in Eye and vision (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Subthreshold micropulse laser for subretinal fluid after vitrectomy in myopic traction maculopathy: a pilot randomized controlled trial.Lasers in medical science · 2026Trial
- Adhesive bioactive materials in ocular applications: Toward smart, regenerative, and minimally invasive therapies.Bioactive materials · 2026Review
- ILM flap coverage versus conventional ILM peeling for idiopathic full-thickness macular hole: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Macular hole caused by intense pulsed light: a case report.BMC ophthalmology · 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
27 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Macular hole surgery, primarily pars plana vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling (ILM) and gas tamponade, has become the standard of care for full-thickness macular hole (FTMH). Despite the 85% to 95% anatomical closure rate, several aspects of the procedure are well accepted whereas some may remain controversial among vitreoretinal surgeons. An international panel of experts (IPE) comprising 27 experts from 10 countries/territories was established to evaluate a total of 38 consensus statements on ILM peeling extent, vital dye selection, face-down positioning requirements, tamponade options, timing of surgery and re-surgery, management of difficult and refractory cases, and adjuvant therapies. The objective is to synthesize evidence-based real-world practice recommendations from leading global experts to guide the management of FTMH. Of the 38 statements, the IPE reached consensus (75% voted as "Strong Agreement" or "Agreement") on 29 (76.3%). The IPE emphasized the importance of individualized patient factors-such as hole size, chronicity, lens status, and preoperative visual acuity-in surgical planning and tempering patient's postoperative expectations. There was strong agreement on the need of adequate peeling of the ILM, adjunctive measures including the inverted ILM flap, and face-down positioning for large and refractory FTMH. Controversial statements, such as the use of air tamponade or observation of small FTMH, not reaching consensus are identified. We hope the consensus statements agreed and disagreed by the IPE would help serve as good reference and guidelines in managing FTMH.
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.