The effect comparison of ILM flap and traditional ILM peeling in iMH

PurposeTo compare the changes in anatomical structure and visual function after idiopathic macular hole (iMH) treatment with internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling and inverted ILM flap and determine the value of the inverted ILM flap for the treatment of iMH. MethodsForty-nine patients with iMH (49 eyes) were included in this study and followed up for 1 year (12 months) after treatment with inverted ILM flap and ILM peeling respectively. The main foveal parameters assessed included the preoperative minimum diameter (MD), intraoperative residual fragments, and postoperative ELM reconstruction. Visual function was assessed using best-corrected visual acuity. ResultsThe hole closure rate was 100% for 49 patients; 15 patients were treated with the inverted ILM flap, and 34 patients underwent ILM peeling. There were no differences between the postoperative best-corrected visual acuities and the rates of ELM reconstruction for the flap and peeling groups with different MDs. In the flap group, ELM reconstruction was associated with the preoperative MD, presence of an ILM flap, and hyperreflective changes in the inner retina 1 month after surgery. In the peeling group, ELM reconstruction was associated with the preoperative MD, intraoperative residual fragments at the hole edge, and hyperreflective changes in the inner retina. ConclusionThe inverted ILM flap and the ILM Peeling were both able to obtain high closure rate. However, the inverted ILM flap showed no obvious advantages related to anatomical morphology and visual function over ILM peeling.

Automated summary

This study compared the changes in anatomical structure and visual function after idiopathic macular hole (iMH) treatment with internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling and inverted ILM flap. The results showed that both techniques achieved a high closure rate, but the inverted ILM flap did not exhibit obvious advantages in anatomical morphology and visual function over ILM peeling.