Evidence Hub

Long-term surgical outcome of high myopic full-thickness macular hole without retinoschisis

Cho SD, Lee EK, Yoon CK, Park UC

BMC ophthalmology, 2025

30 participants

Abstract

Background: To examine the clinical features and long-term surgical results of highly myopic full-thickness macular hole (FTMH) without retinoschisis.

Methods: We retrospectively assessed surgical outcomes of highly myopic patients who underwent vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling and gas tamponade to treat FTMH without retinoschisis. Post-operative examinations were conducted at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery, with further follow-up intervals adjusted based on physician's discretion. Clinical features related to visual acuity and anatomical success, defined as hole closure without developing foveal atrophy, were assessed.

Results: Thirty-three eyes (30 patients) were included, and the mean follow-up period was 61.1 ± 48.8 months. Macular hole closure was achieved in 31 (93.9%) eyes, of which 16 (51.6%) developed foveal atrophy during follow-up. Eyes with anatomical success exhibited a significant better visual prognosis than those without during whole follow-up period (P ≤ 0.031), showing a significant postoperative visual improvement from baseline at 6 months, 12 months and final visit (P = 0.002, P < 0.001 and P = 0.013, respectively). Greater minimal macular hole diameter (P = 0.002) and the presence of posterior staphyloma (P = 0.040) were significantly related to anatomical failure, whereas longer axial length was significantly related to poorer final best-corrected visual acuity (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Hole closure rate after vitrectomy in…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 30 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