Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2025
The use of amniotic membrane or inverted internal limiting membrane flap for large or refractory macular holes: a prospective, comparative study using microperimetry.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Carvalho Araujo Anna Carolina, Bordon Arnaldo F, Falcão Vinicius, Bortolai Patricia, Dib Eduardo, Maia Mauricio
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare microperimetry findings over one year following surgery for the treatment of large and/or refractory macular holes (MH) using human amniotic membrane (HAM) versus an internal limiting membrane (ILM) flap. Secondary endpoints included MH closure rates and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA).
METHODS: In this prospective, randomised, unmasked, single-centre study, 23 patients (25 eyes) with large (≥ 600 micrometers) or refractory MH were randomly assigned to Group 1 (HAM, n = 14) or Group 2 (ILM flap, n = 11). BCVA, Optical coherence tomography (OCT), and microperimetry findings were compared.
RESULTS: The closure rate was 100% and 81.8% in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.276). The mean BCVA was not significantly different at baseline and at the 12-month follow-up. At 12 months, 83.3% and 70% of eyes in groups 1 and 2, respectively, had stable fixation (p = 0.457). The fixation was higher in group 1 at baseline. Sensitivity (dB) results showed a significant difference at 12 months between groups (p = 0.029).
CONCLUSION: Improvement in macular sensitivity was not statistically better in the HAM group compared to the ILM flap group. Secondarily there was a significant improvement of BCVA in group 1 at month 12. The HAM surgery appears to be safe and effective for the treatment of large and refractory MH, showing good anatomical and functional outcomes.
CLINICALTRIALS: gov 17 May 2021 (identifier: NCT04904679).
METHODS: In this prospective, randomised, unmasked, single-centre study, 23 patients (25 eyes) with large (≥ 600 micrometers) or refractory MH were randomly assigned to Group 1 (HAM, n = 14) or Group 2 (ILM flap, n = 11). BCVA, Optical coherence tomography (OCT), and microperimetry findings were compared.
RESULTS: The closure rate was 100% and 81.8% in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.276). The mean BCVA was not significantly different at baseline and at the 12-month follow-up. At 12 months, 83.3% and 70% of eyes in groups 1 and 2, respectively, had stable fixation (p = 0.457). The fixation was higher in group 1 at baseline. Sensitivity (dB) results showed a significant difference at 12 months between groups (p = 0.029).
CONCLUSION: Improvement in macular sensitivity was not statistically better in the HAM group compared to the ILM flap group. Secondarily there was a significant improvement of BCVA in group 1 at month 12. The HAM surgery appears to be safe and effective for the treatment of large and refractory MH, showing good anatomical and functional outcomes.
CLINICALTRIALS: gov 17 May 2021 (identifier: NCT04904679).