ArticleEye (London, England)2026
Distinct postoperative anatomical outcomes between lamellar macular holes and epiretinal membrane foveoschisis.
Article in Eye (London, England), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the postoperative anatomical outcomes between eyes with lamellar macular hole (LMH), epiretinal membrane foveoschisis (ERM-FS) and macular pseudohole (MPH).
methodsA retrospective single-centre study, including patients operated for LMH, ERM-FS or MPH, was conducted in a tertiary care centre in Paris, France. LMH eyes underwent vitrectomy with epiretinal proliferation peeling and tamponade, while ERM-FS and MPH eyes underwent ERM peeling without tamponade.
resultsEighty-three eyes were included with a mean follow-up of 10.4 months: 16 with LMH, 50 with ERM-FS, and 17 with MPH. The mean preoperative central macular thickness (CMT) in LMH eyes (300 ± 43 µm) was thinner than normal and significantly differed from that in ERM-FS and MPH eyes (425 ± 80 µm vs. 380 ± 81 µm, p < 0.0001 and p = 0.02, respectively), which were thicker than normal. In LMH eyes, the mean postoperative CMT remained stable (285 ± 35 µm, p = 0.2) and thinner than in ERM-FS eyes, which was significantly decreased to 371 ± 46 µm (p < 0.0001). The mean postoperative central foveal thickness was significantly increased in ERM-FS eyes (from 191 to 271 µm, p < 0.0001) and in MPH eyes (from 189 to 288 µm, p < 0.0006), while stable compared to before surgery in LMH eyes (141 and 165 µm, p = 0.11) and thinner than normal.
conclusionsLamellar macular hole is a distinct vitreoretinal interface disorder from ERM-FS, with different anatomical postoperative outcomes. Eyes with LMH can improve vision after vitrectomy but its surgical management may differ from that of ERM-FS.
Identifiers
42760329What 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.