ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane (ILM) insertion versus inverted ILM flap on myopic macular hole in high myopia.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the macular anatomical reduction and visual outcome of vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling and flap insertion to that with flap inverted in the treatment of myopic macular hole in high myopia.
methodThis is a retrospective study. Main outcome measures were best-corrected visual acuity(BCVA) and morphology of macular hole. Collect baseline and postoperative data at 1, 3, and 6 months follow-up.
resultThe data collected in the study were obtained from 46 patients (46 eyes), among whom 25 patients had previously undergone vitrectomy combined with ILM insertion, while 21 patients had previously undergone vitrectomy combined with inverted ILM flap. The baseline BCVA of the ILM insertion and inverted ILM flap groups were 1.43 ± 0.68 logMAR and 1.60 ± 0.72 logMAR, which increased to 1.11 ± 0.30 logMAR and 0.98 ± 0.32 logMAR at 6 months post-surgery (p = 0.721). The incidence of anatomical closure of macular hole in the ILM insertion and inverted ILM flap groups were 88.46% and 95.24% at 6 months post-surgery (p = 0.824).
conclusionThis study demonstrates that both vitrectomy combined with ILM insertion and the inverted ILM flap technique achieved favorable anatomical closure rates and visual improvement in the treatment of myopic macular hole without retinal detachment, with no serious complications observed. However, the comparative efficacy of the two techniques requires further validation through larger prospective studies. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR2400094348. The registration date is December 20, 2024. Clinical Trial Registry: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry.
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.