ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique versus internal limiting membrane removal in large macular hole with different hole edge configurations: a comparative study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the anatomical and functional outcomes of the inverted internal limiting membrane (ILM) flap technique and the complete ILM removal in the treatment of large macular hole (MH) > 400 μm with or without Hole-door structures. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed 56 patients with MH > 400 μm. Based on hole edge morphology evaluated by archived intraoperative optical coherence tomography (iOCT) images, patients were divided into the Hole-door group (Group 1) and the Negative group (Group 2). Within each group, patients were further classified into two subgroups based on the surgical technique performed: complete ILM removal (Group 1-a, 2-a) and visco-assisted ILM flap (Group 1-b, 2-b). External limiting membrane (ELM) and ellipsoid zone (EZ) restoration and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) were assessed at 3 and 6 months post-surgery. Results: Correlation analysis found no significant link between preoperative MHD and postoperative outcomes. The Hole-door group showed better vision, ELM, and EZ recovery than the Negative group, regardless of ILM removal or visco-assisted ILM flap ( Conclusion: Large macular holes with Hole-door structures have a better prognosis than those without. In these cases, BCVA and retinal microstructure restoration are similar between ILM removal and ILM flap surgery, but the ILM flap accelerates recovery.
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.