IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0236431.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Inverted ILM flap technique versus conventional ILM peeling for idiopathic large macular holes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Author

Listed:
  • Guohai Chen
  • Radouil Tzekov
  • Fangzheng Jiang
  • Sihong Mao
  • Yuhua Tong
  • Wensheng Li

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the anatomical and visual outcomes of inverted internal limiting membrane (ILM) flap technique with the conventional ILM peeling for idiopathic large macular holes (MHs). Methods: A meta-analysis of randomized control trials (RCTs) using online databases including NCBI PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ISI Web of Science was performed. Anatomic success and type 1 closure rates, the mean postoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and the mean change of BCVA from baseline were analyzed. Results: Out of 251 articles, four described clinical trials matching the inclusion criteria and were selected. They included 276 eyes (135 eyes in the inverted ILM flap group and 141 eyes in the ILM peeling group). All the studies used gas tamponade, with two studies having a follow-up duration of 3 months, while one study had a follow-up of 6 months and one study– 12 months. The meta-analysis demonstrated that anatomic success and type 1 closure rates (presence of neurosensory retina in MH) were better in the inverted ILM flap technique (odds ratio (OR) = 4.89; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.09–11.47; P = 0.0003 and OR = 5.23; 95% CI, 2.83–9.66; P

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0236431
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236431
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0236431
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0236431&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0236431?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
    ---><---

    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:pone00:0236431. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.