Internal Limiting Membrane Peeling versus No Peeling for Idiopathic Full-Thickness Macular Hole: A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science2010Vol. 52(3), pp. 1586–1586
Citations Over TimeTop 10% of 2010 papers
Noemi Lois, Jennifer Burr, John Norrie, Luke Vale, Jonathan Cook, Alison McDonald, Charles Boachie, Laura Ternent, Gladys McPherson
Abstract
There was no evidence of a difference in distance VA after the ILM peeling and no-ILM peeling techniques. An important benefit in favor of no ILM peeling was ruled out. Given the higher anatomic closure and lower reoperation rates in the ILM-peel group, ILM peeling seems to be the treatment of choice for idiopathic stage 2 to 3 FTMH. (Clinical Trials.gov number, NCT00286507.).
Related Papers
- → Air vs Gas Tamponade During Macular Hole Repair Surgery(2020)7 cited
- → Management options for early stages of acutely symptomatic macular holes(2002)9 cited
- → TRAUMATIC MACULAR HOLE IN SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME SUCCESSFULLY TREATED WITH PARS PLICATA VITRECTOMY AND GAS TAMPONADE(2008)2 cited
- [Results of pars plana vitrectomy with intraocular SF-6 gas tamponade in complicated retinal detachment].(1994)
- → Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) versus perfluoropropane (C3F8) gas tamponade for macular hole surgery(2009)