ArticleRetina (Philadelphia, Pa.)2026
EPIRETINAL PROLIFERATION EMBEDDING WITHOUT INTERNAL LIMITING MEMBRANE PEELING FOR LAMELLAR MACULAR HOLE.
Article in Retina (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo report anatomical and functional outcomes of epiretinal proliferation (EP) embedding without internal limiting membrane peeling for lamellar macular holes (LMHs) with EP.
methodsThis retrospective interventional case series involved patients with idiopathic LMHs and EP who underwent pars plana vitrectomy using the EP-embedding technique without internal limiting membrane peeling. The EP was peeled centripetally, left connected to the LMH edge, and embedded into the retinal cleavage plane. 20% sulfur hexafluoride gas tamponade was applied. After surgery, patients were recommended to avoid lying face-up.
resultsFifteen eyes of 15 patients were included, and the mean follow-up was 12 ± 8 months. Lamellar macular hole closure was achieved in 100% of cases. Best-corrected visual acuity and central retinal thickness showed significant postoperative improvement, from 0.31 ± 0.20 logMAR (20/40 Snellen) and 156.5 ± 40.7 µ m preoperatively to 0.10 ± 0.12 logMAR (20/25 Snellen) ( P = 0.002) and 221.5 ± 46.5 µ m ( P < 0.001), respectively. Ellipsoid zone (EZ) and external limiting membrane restoration rates were 50% and 100%, respectively. No cases of full-thickness macular hole formation, LMH recurrence, or major complications were observed.
conclusionEP-embedding without internal limiting membrane peeling yields favorable anatomical and functional outcomes in LMHs with EP and supports the nontractional pathophysiology of the condition.
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.