2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.02.061
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Internal Limiting Membrane Removal during Macular Hole Surgery

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
97
2
4

Year Published

2008
2008
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 165 publications
(110 citation statements)
references
References 90 publications
6
97
2
4
Order By: Relevance
“…21 Further, in the holes that did close, visual outcome was significantly worse if ICG was used: 67% of the no-ICG group obtained two logMAR lines of improvement compared with 56% in the ICG group. This study was designed to compare ILM peeling with no peeling, rather than to look for ICG toxicity.…”
Section: Visual and Anatomic Outcomementioning
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…21 Further, in the holes that did close, visual outcome was significantly worse if ICG was used: 67% of the no-ICG group obtained two logMAR lines of improvement compared with 56% in the ICG group. This study was designed to compare ILM peeling with no peeling, rather than to look for ICG toxicity.…”
Section: Visual and Anatomic Outcomementioning
confidence: 92%
“…61 A large non-randomized study found that ICG was associated with lower rates of anatomic success, and worse acuity in those eyes with closed holes. 21 The large number of non-randomized, observational studies are all potentially subject to selection bias, publication bias, and confounding, and many were not adequately powered. Their findings differ widely, but the most common observation appears to be visual field defects.…”
Section: Summary Of Icg Clinical Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This may be comparable to reported rates of closure in investigations in which ILM peeling was performed. 37 In our study, the remaining 6.0% of eyes with persistently open MHs were closed with an additional procedure in which standard complete ILM peeling was performed. Our hypothesis is that in this subset of patients with unsuccessful primary MH closure the ILM and membrane remained intact, and there was inadequate removal of the tractional forces.…”
mentioning
confidence: 82%
“…We did not have a control group for comparison that underwent standard ILM peeling and it has been suggested that complete ILM peeling may ensure long-term closure rates. 37 …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We investigated the healing process of foveal microstructures and visual acuity pre-and post-operatively at 1, 3, 6, 12 months after surgery. We evaluated the integrity of four factors by OCT image: existence of MH (Hole, H1,3,6,12), recovery of outer nuclear layer (ONL, O1,3,6,12), recovery of external limiting membrane (ELM, E1,3,6,12), and recovery of inner segment-outer segment (IS/OS) line of the photoreceptor (Photoreceptor, P1,3,6,12). We compared the recovery course and visual acuity of the four groups based on postoperative 12 months.…”
Section: Purposementioning
confidence: 99%