Effect of Macular Internal Limiting Membrane Peeling on Single Surgery Success Rates of Vitrectomy for Uncomplicated, Primary Macula-Off Retinal Detachment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To determine the anatomic and visual outcomes of pars plana vitrectomy for uncomplicated, primary macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) with and without internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling. Methods: This retrospective chart review comprised 129 patients with uncomplicated, primary macula-off RRD presenting between January 1, 2016, and May 31, 2021. Thirty-six patients (27.9%) had ILM peeling and 93 (72.0%) did not. The primary outcome was the rate of recurrent RRD. Secondary outcomes included preoperative and postoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), epiretinal membrane (ERM) formation, and macular thickness. Results: No significant difference was found in the risk for recurrent RRD between patients who had ILM peeling and those who did not (2.8% [1/36] and 5.4% [5/93], respectively) ( P = 1.00). The final postoperative BCVA was better in eyes that did not have ILM peeling ( P < .001). No ERM occurred in the group with ILM peeling, whereas ERM occurred in 27 patients (29.0%) who did not have ILM peeling. The temporal macular retina was thinner in eyes in which ILM peeling was performed. Conclusions: The risk for recurrent RRD was not statistically lower in eyes having ILM peeling of the macula in uncomplicated, primary macula-off RRD. Despite a reduction in postoperative ERM formation, eyes having macular ILM peeling had worse postoperative VA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".