ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Anatomical and functional outcomes and prognostic factors after idiopathic full-thickness macular hole surgery: a single-center retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate anatomical and functional outcomes after idiopathic full-thickness macular hole (FTMH) surgery and identify factors associated with anatomical closure and six-month visual outcome.
methodsThis retrospective study included 74 eyes of 74 patients who underwent primary pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) between June 2014 and November 2025. Surgery was performed with either conventional internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling or temporal inverted ILM flap surgery. Baseline clinical data, optical coherence tomography (OCT) parameters, including minimum linear diameter (MLD) and macular hole index (MHI), tamponade type, anatomical outcomes, reoperation status, and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) were analyzed. Primary anatomical closure was defined as closure after the initial surgery, whereas final anatomical closure was defined as closure at final follow-up, including closure after reoperation. An exploratory adjusted linear regression model evaluated factors associated with six-month BCVA.
resultsPrimary anatomical closure was achieved in 59 eyes (79.7%), and final anatomical closure increased to 64 eyes (86.5%) after reoperation. Median BCVA improved from 1.30 to 0.70 logMAR at postoperative months 3 and 6 (both p < 0.001). Reoperation was performed in 9 eyes with persistent macular hole and achieved closure in 5 eyes (55.6%). Poorer preoperative BCVA was associated with persistent anatomical failure after primary surgery and at final follow-up (p = 0.021 and p = 0.023). Primary surgical technique, MLD category, and MHI category were not associated with anatomical closure. Although eyes treated with temporal inverted ILM flap surgery had poorer preoperative BCVA and a numerically larger MLD, six-month BCVA gain was greater in these eyes in the unadjusted comparison (p = 0.036). However, after adjustment for preoperative BCVA and MLD, surgical technique was not independently associated with six-month postoperative BCVA (p = 0.155). Better preoperative BCVA and smaller MLD were associated with better six-month postoperative BCVA (p = 0.001 and p = 0.021).
conclusionsSurgery achieved anatomical closure in most eyes and significant six-month visual improvement. Baseline visual acuity and MLD may be clinically relevant markers of postoperative outcome, whereas the apparent unadjusted visual benefit of temporal inverted ILM flap surgery should be interpreted cautiously.
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.