Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41163584›Full record

ArticleClinical & experimental ophthalmology

Internal Limiting Membrane Flap Versus Conventional Peeling for Idiopathic Full Thickness Macular Holes: A Registry Analysis of 2990 Eyes.

Zi Jin, Mohammad Amin Honardoost, Ee Lin Ong, Ahmad Reza Pourghaderi, Fred K Chen, Weng Onn Chan, Prakshi Chopra, Mitchell Lee, Abhishek Sharma, Gurmit Uppal and 4 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical & experimental 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

14 authors.

Zi JinQueen Mary University of London, UK.
Mohammad Amin HonardoostClinical Outcomes Data Reporting and Research Program, Department of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
Ee Lin OngSydney & Sydney Eye Hospital, New South Wales, Australia.
Ahmad Reza PourghaderiClinical Outcomes Data Reporting and Research Program, Department of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
Fred K ChenCentre for Ophthalmology and Visual Science, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2809-9930
Weng Onn ChanThe University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Prakshi ChopraSydney & Sydney Eye Hospital, New South Wales, Australia.
Mitchell LeeDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Abhishek SharmaUniversity of Queensland, Australia.
Gurmit UppalMoreton Eye Group, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Penelope J AllenCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5916-1253
Rohan W EssexAcademic Unit of Ophthalmology, Medical School, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Adrian T FungDepartment of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1117-3893
Australian and New Zealand Society of Retinal Specialists Retinal Surgery Registry Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo compare the anatomical and functional outcomes of internal limiting membrane (ILM) flap and conventional ILM peeling in idiopathic full-thickness macular holes (FTMHs).

methodsRetrospective cohort study of all eyes treated with vitrectomy and ILM peeling (ILM-P) with or without ILM flap (ILM-F) for primary idiopathic FTMH repair in the Australian and New Zealand Society of Retinal Specialists (ANZSRS) Registry between 2006 and 2023. Propensity score weighting and multivariable regression analysis adjusted for baseline characteristics and covariates, including surgeon grade, lens status, and follow-up duration, were used to evaluate hole closure rate and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) change at 3 months.

resultsTwo thousand nine hundred ninety eyes of 2905 patients were included (mean age 69 ± 9 years). One Hundred Ninety-nine eyes underwent ILM-F and 2871 underwent ILM-P. On weighted multivariable regression analysis, ILM-F showed higher odds of hole closure compared to ILM-P (OR = 2.97, 95% CI: 1.08-8.20, p = 0.04). The adjusted closure rate was > 95% across all hole sizes in the ILM-F group, while only falling below 90% for X-large + holes (> 550 μm) in the ILM-P group. No significant difference in BCVA gain was observed between the two groups at 3 months (p = 0.08). The effects of ILM-F compared to ILM-P were consistent across all hole sizes.

conclusionsAlthough the ILM-F technique was more effective in idiopathic FTMH closure, visual acuity outcomes were comparable to conventional ILM peeling. These findings suggest that ILM-F is not required for the treatment of small and medium FTMHs.

Indexed as

Basement MembraneRegistriesRetinal PerforationsSurgical FlapsVisual AcuityVitrectomyAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTomography, Optical Coherenceregistriesretinal perforationsretrospective studiesvitrectomy

Identifiers

PMID41163584
PMCPMC12886614

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.