The Hole Story: Spontaneous Closure after Reopening.

Marcelo Zas, Marcos Mendaro, Guido Bregliano, Alejandro Javier Aguilar, Maria Carolina Pozzoni, Ashish Sharma

Abstract readCase Reports

In one paragraph

Article in Case reports in ophthalmology. 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.

Marcelo ZasOphthalmology Department, Retina Section, Hospital de Clínicas "José de San Martín", University of Buenos AiresBuenos Aires, Argentina.

Marcos MendaroOphthalmology Department, Retina Section, Hospital de Clínicas "José de San Martín", University of Buenos AiresBuenos Aires, Argentina.

Guido BreglianoOftalmos Institute and Sanatorio Otamendi Miroli, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Alejandro Javier AguilarOcular Surface Department, Grupo Médico Las Lomas, San Isidro, Argentina.

Maria Carolina PozzoniOphthalmology Department, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Retina Section, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Ashish SharmaLotus Eye Hospital and Institute, Coimbatore, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: We report a case of spontaneous closure after early reopening of a previously successfully treated macular hole (MH). Case Presentation: A 73-year-old patient presented with visual acuity of 20/100 and complained of defective vision. Examination and investigations confirmed a full-thickness MH. Surgical intervention led to complete closure of the hole on OCT within 5 days. However, the patient reported recurrence of symptoms 2 weeks later, and reopening of the hole was diagnosed. Re-surgery was advised, but surprisingly, the hole spontaneously closed by the seventh week and remained closed at the last follow-up (6 months post-surgery), with visual acuity improving to 20/50. Conclusions: Reopening of an MH can occur months or years after successful treatment, and the underlying reasons remain unclear. While reoperation is often indicated, spontaneous healing, although rare, is possible. This case highlights the potential for spontaneous closure of a reopened MH, suggesting that a wait-and-watch approach may be worthwhile before deciding on further surgery.

Indexed as

Early reopeningFull thickness macular holeMacular surgerySpontaneous closure

Identifiers

PMID41063820

DOI10.1159/000547739

PMCPMC12503639

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY-NC

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.