Internal limiting membrane peel size and macular hole surgery outcome: a systematic review and individual participant data study of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is no consensus regarding the optimal internal limiting membrane (ILM) peel size during vitrectomy for idiopathic full thickness macular holes (iFTMH). METHODS: A systematic review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing vitrectomy with ILM peeling of differing sizes in adults with iFTMH. Individual participant data was obtained including relevant baseline variables. The effect of different ILM peel sizes, divided into "small" (1-disc diameter [DD] in radius or less) and "large" (>1-DD in radius) were analysed on primary hole closure and postoperative visual acuity (VA) at 6 months. A subgroup analysis analysing for the effect of macular hole size on the same outcomes was also performed. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) was used to assess the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Five RCTs with 370 eyes were included. Primary closure was achieved in 74.7% in small peel group compared to 84.8% in large peel group (p = 0.016). Multilevel logistic regression showed that a peel radius of >1-DD probably improved hole closure slightly with odds ratio (OR) of 1.20 (95% CI: 1.11-1.31, p < 0.001) and a number needed to treat (NNT) to benefit of 31 (95% CI: 21-53). ILM peel size likely did not affect VA. The mean difference in postoperative VA was a -0.05 logMAR gain (2-3 ETDRS letters) (95% CI: -0.13 to 0.02, p = 0.155) in vision with a large ILM peel radius. The GRADE certainty of evidence was moderate for both outcomes. A significantly higher closure rate was found in the large peel group for iFTMH >400 microns with an OR of 1.24 (95% CI: 1.11-1.38, p < 0.001) and NNT to benefit of 21 (95% CI: 17-50), but not in holes <400 microns (OR 1.05 (95% CI: 0.93-1.18, p = 0.396)). CONCLUSIONS: Performing ILM peel of more than 1-DD in radius likely improves closure rates for iFTMH although the effect size is relatively small. The effect is greater in holes >400 microns. ILM peel size probably has no significant effect on 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 | 0.053 | 0.163 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.054 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".