Submitted:
05 September 2024
Posted:
06 September 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
Surgical Technique
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kelly NE, Wendel RT. Vitreous surgery for idiopathic macular holes: results of a pilot study. Archives of ophthalmology 1991;109:654-659. [CrossRef]
- Eckardt C, Eckardt U, Groos S, et al. Entfernung der Membrana limitans interna bei Makulalöchern Klinische und morphologische Befunde* Klinische und morphologische Befunde. Der Ophthalmologe 1997;94:545-551. [CrossRef]
- Steel D, Donachie P, Aylward G, et al. Factors affecting anatomical and visual outcome after macular hole surgery: findings from a large prospective UK cohort. Eye 2021;35:316-325. [CrossRef]
- Michalewska Z, Michalewski J, Adelman RA, Nawrocki J. Inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique for large macular holes. Ophthalmology 2010;117:2018-2025. [CrossRef]
- Caporossi T, Tartaro R, Giansanti F, Rizzo S. The amniotic membrane for retinal pathologies. Insights on the surgical techniques. Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2020;258:1347-1349. [CrossRef]
- Marlow ED, Bakhsh SR, Reddy DN, et al. Combined epiretinal and internal limiting membrane retracting door flaps for large macular holes associated with epiretinal membranes. Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2022:1-4. [CrossRef]
- Singh A, Dogra M, Singh SR, et al. Microscope-Integrated optical coherence Tomography–Guided autologous full-thickness neurosensory retinal autograft for large macular Hole–Related total retinal detachment. Retina 2022;42:2419-2424. [CrossRef]
- Pang CE, Spaide RF, Freund KB. Epiretinal proliferation seen in association with lamellar macular holes: a distinct clinical entity. Retina 2014;34:1513-1523. [CrossRef]
- Qi B, Yu Y, Yang X, et al. Clinical characteristics and surgical prognosis of idiopathic macular holes with epiretinal proliferation. Retina 2022:10.1097. [CrossRef]
- Bae K, Lee SM, Kang SW, et al. Atypical epiretinal tissue in full-thickness macular holes: pathogenic and prognostic significance. British Journal of Ophthalmology 2019;103:251-256. [CrossRef]
- Ubukata Y, Imai H, Otsuka K, et al. The Comparison of the surgical outcome for the full-thickness macular hole with/without lamellar hole-associated epiretinal proliferation. J Ophthalmol. 2017; 2017: 9640756. [CrossRef]
- Dervenis N, Dervenis P. Letter to the editor relating to Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2022 260: 2433–2436:“Combined epiretinal and internal limiting membrane retracting door flaps for large macular holes associated with epiretinal membranes”. Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2023;261:589-591. [CrossRef]
- Duker JS, Kaiser PK, Binder S, et al. The International Vitreomacular Traction Study Group classification of vitreomacular adhesion, traction, and macular hole. Ophthalmology 2013;120:2611-2619. [CrossRef]
- Lai T-T, Chen S-N, Yang C-M. Epiretinal proliferation in lamellar macular holes and full-thickness macular holes: clinical and surgical findings. Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2016;254:629-638. [CrossRef]

| Characteristic | Summary Measure | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | ±SD | ||
| Age (years) | 70.37 | ±3.16 | |
| VA (logMAR) | 1.11 | ±0.52 | |
| Mean MLD (μm) | 707.63 | ±164.02 | |
|
Mean follow-up (months) Sex |
6.75 n |
±4.40 (%) |
|
| Male | 2 | (12.5) | |
| Female | 14 | (87.5) | |
| Study eye | n | (%) | |
| Right | 8 | (50) | |
| Left | 8 | (50) | |
| Lens status | n | (%) | |
| Phakic | 14 | (87.5) | |
| Pseudophakic | 2 | (12.5) | |
| MLD = Minimum linear diameter, VA = Visual acuity, SD = Standard deviation | |||
| Characteristic | Summary Measure | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| n | (%) | ||
| Combined phacoemulsification | |||
| Yes | 12 | (75) | |
| No | 4 | (25) | |
| PVD | |||
| Present | 8 | (50) | |
| Induced | 8 | (50) | |
| Tamponade used | |||
| C2F6 | 10 | (62.5) | |
| C3F8 | 6 | (37.5) | |
| PVD = Posterior vitreous detachment | |||
| Characteristic | Summary Measure | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | ±SD | ||
| VA at 6 weeks (logMAR) | 0.51 | ±0.20 | |
| Final VA (logMAR) | 0.45 | ±0.25 | |
| Macular hole closed | n | (%) | |
| Yes | 16 | (100) | |
| No | 0 | (0) | |
| ELM at 6 weeks | N | (%) | |
| Continuous | 6 | (37.5) | |
| Disrupted | 10 | (62.5) | |
| EZ at final follow-up | N | (%) | |
| Continuous | 0 | (0) | |
| Disrupted | 16 | (100) | |
| ELM = external limiting membrane, EZ = ellipsoid zone, VA = Visual acuity, SD = Standard deviation | 16 | (100) | |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).