Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41513974›Full record

ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2026

A discrepancy in epiretinal proliferation detection between preoperative OCT and intraoperative observation in macular hole.

Masaki Fukushima, Atsushi Hayashi, Shunji Kusaka, Motohiro Kamei, Ryota Akai, Kotaro Tsuboi

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2026. 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.

Masaki FukushimaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Graduate School of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Toyama, Sugitani, Toyama, 2630, 930-0194, Japan.
Atsushi HayashiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Graduate School of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Toyama, Sugitani, Toyama, 2630, 930-0194, Japan.
Shunji KusakaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Kindai University Faculty of Medicine, 1-14-1 Mihara-dai, Minami-ku, Sakai-shi, Osaka, 590-0197, Japan.
Motohiro KameiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Aichi Medical University, 1-1, Yazako-Karimata, Nagakute, 480-1195, Aichi, Japan.
Ryota AkaiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Graduate School of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Toyama, Sugitani, Toyama, 2630, 930-0194, Japan.
Kotaro TsuboiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Aichi Medical University, 1-1, Yazako-Karimata, Nagakute, 480-1195, Aichi, Japan. kotarotsuboi@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5119-8414

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeEpiretinal proliferation (EP) is associated with poor visual and anatomical outcomes in eyes with macular holes (MHs). A preoperative cross-sectional OCT can detect EP; however, We observed that some cases with intraoperatively visible EP showed no evidence of EP on preoperative OCT. This study assessed the discrepancy between EP observed by OCT and during surgery.

methodsWe defined OCT-EP as epiretinal materials with homogeneous medium reflectivity observed in cross-sectional OCT. We defined surgical-EP as yellowish tissues contiguous to the hole during the membrane peeling. We detected the surgical-EP by also assessing the internal limiting membrane staining pattern using Brilliant Blue G (BBG) and preretinal abnormal tissue (PAT) using en face OCT.

resultsWe included 110 eyes. Intraoperative observations revealed surgical-EP in 30 (27%) eyes, while preoperative OCT revealed EP in 26 (24%) eyes. Setting the surgical-EP as the ground truth gave a sensitivity of preoperative OCT for the detection of EP of 87% and specificity of 100%. In 4 of the 30 eyes (13%), EP was not detected on preoperative OCT and all of these eyes exhibited peri-MH nonstaining areas. Peri-MH nonstaining area and peri-MH PAT were larger in eyes with surgical-EP than in eyes without surgical-EP (P = 0.0001 and P = 0.0029).The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 84.3% for the peri-MH nonstaining area for detection of surgical-EP and 94.8% for peri-MH PAT.

conclusionsPreoperative cross-sectional OCT may overlook EP. The BBG staining patterns and en face OCT provide additional clues for detecting EP. Key messages What is known • Epiretinal proliferation (EP) is a known biomarker correlated with poor visual and anatomical outcomes in eyes with macular hole. • Cross-sectional OCT is the standard modality for the detection of preoperative EP but may fail to identify subtle cases. What is new • There is a 13% discrepancy between preoperative OCT and intraoperative observation to detect EP. • Using only preoperative cross-sectional OCT may overlook the presence of EP. • Brilliant blue G staining pattern and en face OCT may be useful to identify undetectable EP by OCT.

Indexed as

Epiretinal MembraneMacula LuteaRetinal PerforationsTomography, Optical CoherenceVisual AcuityVitrectomyAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIntraoperative PeriodMaleMiddle AgedPreoperative PeriodRetrospective Studiescoomassie Brilliant BlueRosaniline DyesBrilliant blue gEpiretinal proliferationFull-thickness macular holeLamellar hole associated epiretinal proliferationMacular holeOptical coherence tomography

Identifiers

PMID41513974

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.