ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Macular hole caused by intense pulsed light: a case report.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntense pulsed light (IPL)-induced macular holes are rare but potentially severe. We report a case with anatomically successful surgical closure but poor functional recovery. A 30-year-old male sustained accidental ocular exposure to 808 ± 10 nm IPL without eye protection. One week later, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 20/200; optical coherence tomography (OCT) revealed a large full-thickness macular hole (basal diameter: 1639 μm) with cystoid edema and retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) disruption. Despite oral corticosteroids, the hole remained open at 1 month. Pars plana vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling and sterile air tamponade achieved anatomical closure by postoperative day 7. However, BCVA remained 20/200 at 1 month due to persistent IS/OS discontinuity and RPE defects. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This case highlights that IPL can cause large, traction-associated macular holes. Even early surgical closure may not restore vision if photoreceptor and RPE integrity are compromised. Eye protection is essential during IPL handling.
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.