Evidence Hub

Autologous Retinal Transplantation for Primary and Refractory Macular Holes and Macular Hole Retinal Detachments: The Global Consortium

Moysidis SN, Koulisis N, Adrean SD, Charles S, Chetty N, Chhablani JK, Cortes JC, Embabi SN et al.

Ophthalmology, 2021

130 participants · 101 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE: To report the anatomic and functional outcomes of autologous retinal transplantation (ART).

DESIGN: Multicenter, retrospective, interventional, consecutive case series.

PARTICIPANTS: One hundred thirty eyes of 130 patients undergoing ART for the repair of primary and refractory macular holes (MHs), as well as combined MH-rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (MH-RRD), between January 2017 and December 2019.

METHODS: All patients underwent pars plana vitrectomy and ART, with surgeon modification of intraoperative variables. A large array of preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data was collected. Two masked reviewers graded OCT images. Multivariate statistical analysis and subgroup analysis were performed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Macular hole closure rate, visual acuity (VA), external limiting membrane and ellipsoid zone (EZ) band integrity, and alignment of neurosensory layers (ANL) on OCT.

RESULTS: One hundred thirty ART surgeries were performed by 33 vitreoretinal surgeons worldwide. Patient demographics were: mean age of 63 ± 6.3 years, 58% female, 41% White, 23% Black, 19% Asian, and 17% Latino. Preoperative VA was 1.37 ± 0.12 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR; Snellen equivalent, approximately 20/500), which improved significantly to 1.05 ± 0.09 logMAR (Snellen equivalent, approximately 20/225; P < 0.001) after surgery (mean follow-up, 8.6 ± 0.8 months). Autologous retinal transplantation was performed for primary MH repair in 27% of…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 130 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free