Evidence Hub

Simple Superior Inverted Flap Technique with Extended Internal Limiting Membrane Peeling for the Treatment of Large Macular Holes

Bajdik B, Kemenes G, Jain V, Noronha KM, Fodor M, Takács L

Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2026

40 participants

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the anatomical and functional outcomes of a simplified superior inverted internal limiting membrane (ILM) flap technique with extended ILM peeling for the surgical treatment of large idiopathic macular holes (iMH).

Patients and methods: This retrospective, non-randomized, interventional consecutive case series included 42 eyes of 40 patients with iMH. Patients were grouped according to the CLOSE study classification: Group 1: large holes (n=19, minimum linear diameter [MLD] >400 to ≤550 µm), Group 2: extra-large holes (n=18, MLD >550 to ≤800 µm), and Group 3: XXL holes (n=5, MLD >800 to ≤1000 µm). The mean follow-up time was 20.63 ± 18.32 months. The primary endpoint was MH closure rate. Secondary outcomes included closure type, changes in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), ellipsoid zone (EZ) defect, flap position, and surgical complications.

Results: Anatomical type 1 closure was achieved in all 42 eyes (100%). The proportion of favorable U-shaped closure decreased significantly with increasing hole size (χ2 = 9.26, df = 2, p = 0.010), with rates of 84.2%, 81.3%, and 20.0% in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. BCVA and EZ defect improved significantly over time in all groups. Final BCVA gain was 4.4 ± 3.3, 6.2 ± 2.7, and 7.3 ± 4.7 ETDRS lines in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively, without significant inter-group differences (p > 0.05). Final BCVA correlated with preoperative BCVA (r = 0.51, p 0.05). No major complications were observed.

Conclusion: The…

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: 40 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