IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0302481.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Efficacy of inverted inner limiting membrane flap technique for macular holes of ≤400 μm: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Seung Min Lee
  • Ji Woong Lee
  • Ji Eun Lee
  • Hee-young Choi
  • Jong Soo Lee
  • Iksoo Byon

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of inverted internal limiting membrane (ILM) flap technique in full-thickness macular holes (MHs) with a size of ≤400 μm compared to the ILM peeling technique. Methods: Related literatures that compared inverted ILM flap and ILM peeling in MHs ≤ 400 μm were reviewed by searching electronic databases including Pubmed, EMbase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Library up to April 2023. The primary outcome measure was hole closure rate, and the secondary outcome measures were the mean postoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), retinal sensitivity, and outer status of the retinal layers, including the external limiting membrane and ellipsoid zone. The quality of the articles was assessed according to the revised version of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials or the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. In the case of heterogeneity, a sensitivity analysis was conducted, and publication bias was visually evaluated using a funnel plot. Results: This review included six studies with 610 eyes for the primary outcome and 385 eyes for the secondary outcomes, which were two randomized control trials and four retrospective studies. Pooled data revealed that the overall MH closure rate was 99.4% in the inverted ILM flap group and 96.2% in the ILM peeling group, without significant difference between the two groups (odds ratio = 3.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.82~18.69; P = 0.09). The inverted ILM flap technique did not have a favorable effect on the BCVA, retinal sensitivity, or recovery of the outer retinal layers. These results were consistent with those of the subgroup analysis of the different follow-up periods. No significant publication bias was observed. Conclusion: In eyes with MHs of ≤400 μm, both techniques demonstrated excellent surgical outcomes without significant differences. Therefore, surgical techniques can be selected according to surgeon preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Seung Min Lee & Ji Woong Lee & Ji Eun Lee & Hee-young Choi & Jong Soo Lee & Iksoo Byon, 2024. "Efficacy of inverted inner limiting membrane flap technique for macular holes of ≤400 μm: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(4), pages 1-18, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0302481
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0302481
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0302481
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0302481&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0302481?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guohai Chen & Radouil Tzekov & Fangzheng Jiang & Sihong Mao & Yuhua Tong & Wensheng Li, 2020. "Inverted ILM flap technique versus conventional ILM peeling for idiopathic large macular holes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-10, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0302481. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.