ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2026
Comparative visual outcomes of inverted ILM flap "covering" versus "stuffed" techniques for macular hole surgery.
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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Long-Term Structural and Functional Restoration of the Retina After Inverted Internal Limiting Membrane Flap Surgery for Idiopathic Full-Thickness Macular Holes.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
Abstract
purposeTo compare the functional and anatomical outcomes of the inverted internal limiting membrane (ILM) flap covering and stuffed techniques in primary macular hole (MH) surgery.
methodsThis retrospective case series included 57 eyes that underwent inverted ILM flap surgery by a single surgeon (covering, n = 33; stuffed, n = 24). Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and optical coherence tomography findings, including restoration of the external limiting membrane (ELM) and ellipsoid zone (EZ), were assessed preoperatively and at 1 and 6 months postoperatively.
resultsThere were no significant differences in preoperative characteristics or MH closure rates between groups. BCVA improved significantly in both groups postoperatively; however, BCVA was significantly better in the covering group at 1 month (P = 0.005) and 6 months (P = 0.001). Restoration of the ELM and EZ was more frequent in the covering group at 1 month (ELM, P < 0.001; EZ, P = 0.002) and 6 months (ELM, P < 0.001; EZ, P = 0.001).
conclusionAlthough both techniques achieved comparable anatomical closure, the covering method provided superior visual and outer retinal recovery for a wide range of macular holes, including medium-to-large cases. These findings suggest that the covering technique may be preferable as a standard approach for primary MH surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42313164What 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.