Dataset Information

Inverted Internal Limiting Membrane Flap Technique versus Internal Limiting Membrane Peeling for Large Macular Holes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling is an effective surgical procedure for the treatment of macular holes (MHs). However, there is a possibility of poor postoperative anatomical closure with conventional ILM peeling for MHs larger than 400 μm. Therefore, a novel inverted ILM flap technique was developed for such cases.

Objectives

This meta-analysis study was performed to evaluate and compare the anatomical and visual outcomes of the inverted ILM flap technique and ILM peeling in large MHs.

Methods

The Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The trial eligibility and risk of bias were assessed according to Cochrane review methods. The primary outcome measures included MH closure rate and postoperative visual acuity (VA). Subgroup analysis of postoperative VA based on follow-up time was also conducted. Pooled odds ratios (ORs), weighted mean difference (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.

Results

Five RCTs with a total of 155 eyes in the inverted ILM flap group and 161 eyes in the ILM peeling group were included in this meta-analysis. Statistical meta-analysis revealed that the overall MH closure rate in the inverted ILM flap group was significantly higher than that in the ILM peeling group (OR = 3.10; 95% CI: 1.25-7.66; p = 0.01). The postoperative VA was significantly better in the inverted ILM flap group than the ILM peeling group (WMD = -0.14; 95% CI: -0.21 to -0.07; p = 0.0002). The subgroup meta-analysis indicated that the postoperative VA was significantly better in the inverted ILM flap group than the ILM peeling group (WMD = -0.17; 95% CI: -0.26 to -0.08; p = 0.0004) at the 3-month follow-up. However, no significant difference was observed between the 2 groups at the 6-month follow-up (WMD = -0.09; 95% CI: -0.20 to 0.02; p = 0.10).

Conclusions

Vitrectomy with the inverted ILM flap technique showed a higher anatomical closure rate as well as visual gain - although only in the short term as no difference in visual recovery was found at the 6-month follow-up - than did ILM peeling in large MHs. The inverted ILM flap technique should be considered as a preferred and routine procedure for the treatment of patients with MHs larger than 400 µm.

SUBMITTER: Yu JG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8619774 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMicroperimetric biofeedback training improved visual acuity and fixation stability in patients who previously underwent macular surgery. We aimed to compare the functional results of biofeedback training with the standard of care in patients who underwent successful inverted Internal Limiting Membrane (ILM)-flap technique for high myopic macular holes (hMMH).MethodsThis was a retrospective, comparative, cohort study. Patients with hMMH after surgical hole closure underwent microperimetric biofeedback using structured light stimulus plus acoustic tone (n = 12; Biofeedback) or standard of care with scheduled visits (n = 11; Control). Best-corrected visual acuity, retinal sensitivity at central 12° (RS) and 4° (CRS) with a mean deviation at central 12° (MD), and fixation stability as bivariate contour ellipse area (BCEA 68%, 95%, and 99%) were assessed at baseline and month 1, 3, 6, and 12. The Mann-Whitney test was used to test the difference between the groups.ResultsBaseline functional parameters were not significantly different among the groups. BCVA significantly improved in each group (Biofeedback, p = 0.002; Control, p ≤ 0.02) at all follow-up visits. CRS significantly improved at 6 (p = 0.03) and 12 (p = 0.01) months in the Biofeedback group and at month 12 (p = 0.01) in the Control group. RS (p = 0.001) and MD (p = 0.005) improved at the last follow-up only in the trained group. After training, BCEA 68% and 95% significantly improved (6 and 12 months, p < 0.05). The Biofeedback group had better results in RS (p ≤ 0.02), CRS (p ≤ 0.02), and BCEA 68%, 95%, and 99% (p ≤ 0.01) compared to the Control at all follow-ups. BCVA and MD were better in the Biofeedback group at month 3 (p = 0.01), and month 3 (p = 0.01) and 12 (p = 0.003), respectively.ConclusionsMicroperimetric biofeedback can increase retinal sensitivity and stabilize fixation better than the standard care over months after a successful inverted ILM-flap for hMMH.