Evidence Hub

Epiretinal proliferation embedding without internal limiting membrane peeling for lamellar macular hole

Adamo GG, Pellegrini M, Talli PM, Mondin R, Cartabellotta A, Giannaccare G, Mura M

Retina (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2026

15 participants

Abstract

Purpose: To report anatomical and functional outcomes of epiretinal proliferation (EP) embedding without internal limiting membrane peeling for lamellar macular holes (LMHs) with EP.

Methods: This retrospective interventional case series involved patients with idiopathic LMHs and EP who underwent pars plana vitrectomy using the EP-embedding technique without internal limiting membrane peeling. The EP was peeled centripetally, left connected to the LMH edge, and embedded into the retinal cleavage plane. 20% sulfur hexafluoride gas tamponade was applied. After surgery, patients were recommended to avoid lying face-up.

Results: Fifteen eyes of 15 patients were included, and the mean follow-up was 12 ± 8 months. Lamellar macular hole closure was achieved in 100% of cases. Best-corrected visual acuity and central retinal thickness showed significant postoperative improvement, from 0.31 ± 0.20 logMAR (20/40 Snellen) and 156.5 ± 40.7 µ m preoperatively to 0.10 ± 0.12 logMAR (20/25 Snellen) ( P = 0.002) and 221.5 ± 46.5 µ m ( P < 0.001), respectively. Ellipsoid zone (EZ) and external limiting membrane restoration rates were 50% and 100%, respectively. No cases of full-thickness macular hole formation, LMH recurrence, or major complications were observed.

Conclusion: EP-embedding without internal limiting membrane peeling yields favorable anatomical and functional outcomes in LMHs with EP and supports the nontractional pathophysiology of the condition.

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: 15 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