Inverted ILM flap technique versus conventional ILM peeling for idiopathic large macular holes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

PurposeTo compare the anatomical and visual outcomes of inverted internal limiting membrane (ILM) flap technique with the conventional ILM peeling for idiopathic large macular holes (MHs).MethodsA meta-analysis of randomized control trials (RCTs) using online databases including NCBI PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ISI Web of Science was performed. Anatomic success and type 1 closure rates, the mean postoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and the mean change of BCVA from baseline were analyzed.ResultsOut of 251 articles, four described clinical trials matching the inclusion criteria and were selected. They included 276 eyes (135 eyes in the inverted ILM flap group and 141 eyes in the ILM peeling group). All the studies used gas tamponade, with two studies having a follow-up duration of 3 months, while one study had a follow-up of 6 months and one study– 12 months. The meta-analysis demonstrated that anatomic success and type 1 closure rates (presence of neurosensory retina in MH) were better in the inverted ILM flap technique (odds ratio (OR) = 4.89; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.09–11.47; P = 0.0003 and OR = 5.23; 95% CI, 2.83–9.66; P<0.00001). Similarly, the inverted flap technique was superior in terms of postoperative logMAR BCVA and mean change of logMAR BCVA from baseline (weighted mean difference (WMD) = 0.17, 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.24, P<0.00001 and WMD = 0.08, 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.16, P = 0.03)ConclusionInverted ILM flap treatment resulted in better closure rates and visual acuity when compared to the standard ILM peeling for large MHs.