ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Modified inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique for lamellar macular hole.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundLamellar macular hole (LMH) is a partial-thickness macular defect thought to be caused by vitreofoveal traction, anteroposterior and tangential forces exerting traction on the fovea.
methodsThis is a retrospective study involving 19 eyes. 25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy (PPV), fovea sparing internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling combined with modified inverted ILM flap under air for treatment of LMH was used.
resultsThe study comprised 14 females and 5 males, involving 13 right and 6 left eyes, with a mean age of 69.52 ± 8.13 years. Symptom duration averaged 498.94 ± 646.96 days. The preoperative residual foveal thickness, which initially averaged 62.26 ± 46.21 μm, increased to a post-operative central foveal thickness of 85.05 ± 48.11 μm after 6 months. Foveal configuration was improved in 15 of 19 eyes (78.94%), one patient had persistent macular edema, and 3 eyes had irregular foveal contour. Among 19 eyes examined, 13 eyes (68.42%) showed intact external limiting membrane (ELM) and ellipsoid zone (EZ) lines both before and after the surgery, resulting in a smooth restoration of the foveal contour. Conversely, in 6 eyes (31.57%) assessed before the operation, the ELM and EZ lines were disrupted. Of these, 3 eyes (15.78%) exhibited improvement, while in the remaining 3 eyes (15.78%), the ELM and EZ lines remained disrupted even after 6 months of follow-up. The mean pre-operative best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in LogMAR was 0.66 ± 0.43 and the mean post-operative BCVA in LogMAR at 1 months was 0.55 ± 0.24, at 3 months was 0.53 ± 0.25 and at 6 months was 0.51 ± 0.24, indicating an overall improvement in BCVA compared to pre-operative levels. Mean BCVA improved from 0.66 ± 0.43 logMAR pre-operative to 0.51 ± 0.24 logMAR at 6 months post-operatively (p = 0.058). There were no instances of full thickness macular hole and no foveal detachment.
conclusionPPV with fovea sparing ILM peeling combined with modified inverted ILM flap under air results in good morphological and functional outcomes.
trial registrationThe study project registration number (Tongji Hospital affiliated with Tongji University School of Medicine (Number: K-W-2024-001)).
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.