Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41045377›Full record

SynthesisGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2025

Optimal approaches for managing recurrent macular holes: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.

Rahaf M Al-Ruwaili, Raghad K Babaker, Raghad H Al-Onazi, Shefa A Al-Amoudi, Maryam H Al-Harbi, Hassan A Al-Dhibi

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Rahaf M Al-RuwailiDivision of Vitreoretinal Surgery, King Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. irahafalruwaili@gmail.com.
Raghad K BabakerOphthalmology Department, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Raghad H Al-OnaziCollege of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Shefa A Al-AmoudiCollege of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Maryam H Al-HarbiOphthalmology Department, Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Hassan A Al-DhibiDivision of Vitreoretinal Surgery, King Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveMacular holes, defined by a central retinal opening, impact vision and are more prevalent as individuals age. Larger holes heighten the risk of persistent issues, leading to recurrent macular holes and presenting treatment challenges. Since 1991, various techniques have been introduced, and new strategies continue to emerge, aiming to enhance closure rates and improve vision correction. Our study seeks to evaluate and compare diverse treatment approaches for recurrent macular holes, emphasizing closure rates and alterations in Best-Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA).

methodsOur search encompassed four distinct databases-PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science-up to June 2025. We incorporated a diverse range of studies, including cohorts, case series, and randomized controlled trials, that offered relevant data on our subject. Data were extracted from the included studies independently. Our dichotomous outcomes were analyzed using a pooled rate ratio and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Also, our continuous outcomes were pooled in our single-arm meta-analysis as mean change (MC) and with a 95% CI.

resultsOur systematic review and meta-analysis included 72 studies encompassing 2104 eyes included in the analysis. In terms of BCVA among recurrent macular hole treatments, Human amniotic membrane intervention, discussed in 11 studies, showed the highest improvement, with MC of -0.57 and a 95% CI of [-0.71 to -0.43]. Following was retinal expansion, mentioned in five studies, with an MC of -0.54 and a 95% CI of [-0.89 to -0.19]. Autologous lens capsular flap transplantation, discussed in four studies, demonstrated an MC of -0.50 with a 95% CI of [-0.69 to -0.31]. Perfluorethane gas + pars plana vitrectomy (PPV), discussed in two studies only, showed the lowest MC of -0.13 with a 95% CI of [-0.27 to -0.02]. Regarding the closure rate, the Human amniotic membrane showed the highest pooled rate (95.5%), followed by Autologous free internal limiting membrane (ILM) flap (94%), Autologous inverted ILM flap transplantation (90.4%), and the lowest closure rate was found in Perfluorothane gas + PPV (58.6%).

conclusionHuman amniotic membrane emerged as the most effective technique for both closure rates and vision improvement in recurrent macular holes, with a closure rate of 95.5% and a significant improvement in BCVA. Autologous free ILM flaps (93.8%) and autologous inverted ILM flap transplantations (90.4%) also showed high closure rates. In contrast, Perfluroethane gas + PPV had the lowest results in both closure rate and BCVA. Managing recurrent macular holes is challenging due to factors like prior surgeries, residual membranes, and changes in surrounding tissues, necessitating a tailored approach. Despite being the first meta-analysis on this topic with a large population, we lack comprehensive complication evaluation. To overcome these constraints, we propose conducting extensive multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compare various techniques. These trials should employ uniform evaluation criteria and extend the follow-up duration to ensure robust findings.

Indexed as

Disease ManagementEndotamponadeRetinal PerforationsVisual AcuityVitrectomyHumansRecurrenceTomography, Optical CoherenceILMMeta-analysisRecurrent macular holeRetinal tearVitrectomy

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.