Surgical outcomes of small and medium macular holes with or without use of internal limiting membrane flaps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the long-term visual and anatomical outcomes of the inverted flap technique in small-to-medium sized macular holes (MH). DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive patients who underwent macular hole surgery at a single retina center in Alberta, Canada. METHODS: Macular hole surgeries were stratified on the basis of size. Postsurgical visual outcomes and hole closure rates were captured. Large holes were excluded from analysis. RESULTS: A total of 239 medium and 252 small holes were included; 65 medium and 40 small holes had internal limited membrane (ILM) flaps. In the small MH group, mean hole size was 170.7 μm, and visual gain averaged 6.4 ETDRS letters, with no significant difference based on surgical technique (p = 0.7). All small holes closed with ILM flapping with 4 (2%) of the ILM peels not closing, this was not significant (p = 0.4). In medium MH, mean hole size was 320.9 μm, and visual gain averaged 11.9 ETDRS letters, with no significant difference based on surgical technique (p = 0.5). All medium holes closed with ILM flapping, with 8 (5%) of the standard ILM peel not closing; this was not significant (p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in either surgical closure rates or visual acuity gains when comparing ILM peeling to the flap technique for both small and medium-sized MH.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".