Abstract
Topic
To compare anatomic and visual outcomes of internal limiting membrane (ILM) flaps versus peeling in macular hole surgery. We also assessed the impact of hole size, symptom duration, and different flap types on outcomes.
Clinical Relevance
The benefit of ILM flaps over standard ILM peeling in idiopathic, full-thickness macular holes (iFTMHs) remains unclear.
Methods
Prospectively registered systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing conventional ILM peeling with ILM flaps, as well different ILM flap subtypes, in adults undergoing primary iFTMH surgery (CRD42023494971). No exclusions were made based on hole size, symptom duration, or perioperative choices. Searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and trial registries (January 2000–March 2023). Critical outcomes were hole closure and postoperative visual acuity at 6 months or nearest time point. Multilevel regression models were adjusted for age, sex, hole size, lens status, and preoperative visual acuity, allowing for non-linear effects. Evidence was appraised with Cochrane Risk of Bias, GRADE, and ICEMAN tools. Subgroup analyses considered hole size, symptom duration, flap subtypes, tamponade choice, and risk-of-bias.
Results
Of 14 eligible trials, 13 provided IPD for 792 eyes. Most (68.3%) had MLD ≥500 μm, with limited representation of holes 500 μm.
Conclusion
ILM flaps likely improve closure and visual recovery compared to peeling alone in iFTMH, with greater effects likely in holes >500 μm.
To compare anatomic and visual outcomes of internal limiting membrane (ILM) flaps versus peeling in macular hole surgery. We also assessed the impact of hole size, symptom duration, and different flap types on outcomes.
Clinical Relevance
The benefit of ILM flaps over standard ILM peeling in idiopathic, full-thickness macular holes (iFTMHs) remains unclear.
Methods
Prospectively registered systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing conventional ILM peeling with ILM flaps, as well different ILM flap subtypes, in adults undergoing primary iFTMH surgery (CRD42023494971). No exclusions were made based on hole size, symptom duration, or perioperative choices. Searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and trial registries (January 2000–March 2023). Critical outcomes were hole closure and postoperative visual acuity at 6 months or nearest time point. Multilevel regression models were adjusted for age, sex, hole size, lens status, and preoperative visual acuity, allowing for non-linear effects. Evidence was appraised with Cochrane Risk of Bias, GRADE, and ICEMAN tools. Subgroup analyses considered hole size, symptom duration, flap subtypes, tamponade choice, and risk-of-bias.
Results
Of 14 eligible trials, 13 provided IPD for 792 eyes. Most (68.3%) had MLD ≥500 μm, with limited representation of holes 500 μm.
Conclusion
ILM flaps likely improve closure and visual recovery compared to peeling alone in iFTMH, with greater effects likely in holes >500 μm.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | Ophthalmology Retina |
| Early online date | 07 Feb 2025 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Early online date - 07 Feb 2025 |
Keywords
- membrane flaps
- macular hole surgery
- data meta-analysis