Inverted Internal Limiting Membrane Flap versus Internal Limiting Membrane Insertion Technique for Large Macular Holes: A Meta-Analysis

PurposesThis meta-analysis aimed to compare and evaluate the morphological and functional outcomes between the inverted internal limiting membrane (ILM) flap and ILM insertion techniques in the treatment of large macular holes (MHs).MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant studies comparing the two techniques for the treatment of large MHs. The primary outcome measures included the MH closure rate, preoperative and postoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), MH closure patterns, and external limiting membrane (ELM) and ellipsoid zone (EZ) recovery. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsTwo randomized controlled trials and four retrospective studies were included in this meta-analysis. The MH closure rate did not significantly differ between the two groups (P = .93). Postoperative BCVA was not significantly different between the two groups at 3 months (P = .20) or 6 months (P = .51). ELM and EZ recovery were also similar between the two groups. However, the results for postoperative BCVA and outer retinal structure recovery tended to favor the ILM flap group based on the forest plot. There was no significant difference between the two groups for the U-shape (P = .26), V-shape (P = .65), and W-shape closure types (P = .38).ConclusionsOur meta-analysis provides evidence that the MH closure rate and visual function outcomes are similar between the ILM flap and ILM insertion techniques in large MHs. However, based on the forest plot, postoperative BCVA and outer retinal layer reconstruction tended to favor the ILM flap technique. Further studies with larger sample sizes are required to confirm the superiority of the ILM flap to the ILM insertion technique.

Automated summary

This meta-analysis compared the outcomes of inverted internal limiting membrane (ILM) flap and ILM insertion techniques in the treatment of large macular holes (MHs). The results showed that there were no significant differences in MH closure rates and visual function outcomes between the two techniques. However, based on the results, postoperative best-corrected visual acuity and outer retinal layer reconstruction tended to favor the ILM flap technique. Further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm the superiority of the ILM flap technique.