Evidence Hub

Evaluation of the upper internal limiting membrane flap technique for surgical closure of medium and large macular holes

Orazbekov L, Ruslanuly K, Amirgalina A, Kyrykbayev D, Sultanbayeva Z

BMC ophthalmology, 2025

51 participants

Abstract

Background: Full-thickness macular hole can cause central vision loss, and outcomes depend on hole size and surgical technique. Inverted internal limiting membrane (ILM) flaps were developed to improve closure in larger defects. We evaluated anatomical and functional outcomes of a superiorly based inverted ILM flap.

Methods: Retrospective, single-arm consecutive case series at a tertiary eye center. All consecutive patients underwent pars plana vitrectomy with a superiorly based inverted ILM flap between January 2021 and December 2023. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and anatomical closure rates were assessed at 12 months postoperatively. Paired Wilcoxon signed-rank testing for BCVA (logMAR) with Hodges-Lehmann median shift and 95% CI were performed. Outcomes were summarized descriptively by MLD strata.

Results: Fifty-one eyes (51 patients; mean age 68.7 ± 7.1 years; 9.8% male) were included. The overall anatomical closure rate was 96.1% (49/51). Median BCVA improved from 1.10 (0.80-1.30) to 0.40 (0.20-0.70) logMAR at 12 months (Wilcoxon p < 0.001), with a Hodges-Lehmann ΔBCVA of - 0.60 logMAR (95% CI, - 0.80 to - 0.40). Among eyes with closure (n = 49), type 1 closure was observed in 49/49 (100%). Postoperative foveal contour was U-shaped in 35/49 (71.4%), V-shaped in 5/49 (10.2%), and W-shaped in 9/49 (18.4%). Median BCVA improved from 1.10 (0.80-1.30) to 0.40 (0.20-0.70) logMAR at 12 months (p < 0.001). No intraoperative or postoperative complications were recorded.…

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: 51 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