Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40995310›Full record

ReviewTaiwan journal of ophthalmology

How optical coherence tomography has changed the management of macular holes: A narrative review.

Kotaro Tsuboi, Masaki Fukushima, Ryota Akai

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Taiwan journal of ophthalmology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kotaro TsuboiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Aichi Medical University, Nagakute, Aichi, Japan.
Masaki FukushimaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Graduate School of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Toyama, Takaoka-Shi, Toyama, Japan.
Ryota AkaiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Takaoka City Hospital, Takaoka-Shi, Toyama, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Optical coherence tomography (OCT) has revolutionized the diagnosis and management of macular holes (MHs). Before OCT, physicians relied on slit-lamp biomicroscopy and angiographic findings, which were often insufficient for differentiating subtle pathologies. By enabling cross-sectional visualization of the retina, OCT has confirmed vitreomacular traction as a key factor in MH formation and supports the safety of surgical intervention. Quantitative OCT parameters have allowed the development of prognostic biomarkers, while spectral-domain OCT has further improved assessment by revealing postoperative photoreceptor integrity, with restoration of the ellipsoid zone and external limiting membrane correlating with visual recovery. OCT imaging under intraocular gas has enabled early confirmation of MH closure, allowing OCT-guided face-down positioning protocols that reduce postoperative burden without compromising outcomes. En face OCT and three-dimensional volumetric analysis have uncovered new biomarkers, such as preretinal abnormal tissue and inner retinal fluid volume, which aid in surgical planning and visual prognosis. Structural changes, such as dissociation of the optic nerve fiber layer and epiretinal proliferation (EP), are also better understood through OCT, thereby influencing decisions on internal limiting membrane peeling and EP preservation. OCT has not only revolutionized the diagnosis and classification of MHs but also continues to shape their surgical management, bringing us closer to optimizing visual recovery through personalized and data-driven approaches.

Indexed as

En face optical coherence tomographymacular holeoptical coherence tomographypreretinal abnormal tissue

Identifiers

PMID40995310
PMCPMC12456926

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.