St Andrews Research Repository

St Andrews University Home
View Item 
  •   St Andrews Research Repository
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • View Item
  •   St Andrews Research Repository
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • View Item
  •   St Andrews Research Repository
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • University of St Andrews Research
  • View Item
  • Login
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling for idiopathic full-thickness macular hole : a pragmatic randomized controlled trial

View/Open
Final_author_version_FILMS.DOC (208Kb)
Date
03/2011
Author
Lois, Noemi
Burr, Jennifer Margaret
Norrie, John
Vale, Luke
Cook, Jonathan
McDonald, Alison
Boachie, Charles
Ternent, Laura
McPherson, Gladys
Full-Thickness Macular Hole
Keywords
Clinical trial
Surgery
Vitrectomy
Removal
Stage-2
RE Ophthalmology
Metadata
Show full item record
Abstract
PURPOSE. To determine whether internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling is effective and cost effective compared with no peeling in patients with idiopathic stage 2 or 3 full-thickness maculay hole (FTMH). METHODS. This was a pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial. Eligible participants front nine centers were randomized to ILM peeling or no peeling (1:1 ratio) in addition to phacovitrectomy, including detachment and removal of the posterior hyaloid and gas tamponade. The primary outcome was distance visual acuity (VA) at 6 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes included hole closure, distance VA at other time points, near VA, contrast sensitivity, reading speed, reoperations, complications, resource use, and participant-reported health status, visual function, and costs. RESULTS. Of 141 participants randomized in nine centers, 127 (90%) completed the 6-month follow-up. Nonstatistically significant differences in distance visual acuity at 6 months were found between groups (Mean difference, 4.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.3 to 9.8; P = 0.063). There was a significantly higher rate of hole closure in the ILM-peel group (56 [84%] vs. 31 [48%]) at 1 month (odds ratio [OR], 6.23; 95% CI, 2.64-14.73; P < 0.001) with fewer reoperations (8 [12%] vs. 31 [48%]) performed by 6 months (OR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.05-0.34; P < 0.001). Peeling the ILM is likely to be cost effective. CONCLUSION. There was no evidence of a difference in distance VA after the ILM peeling and no-ILM peeling techniques. An important benefit in favor of no ILM peeling was ruled out. Given the higher anatomic closure and lower reoperation rates in the ILM-peel group, ILM peeling seems to be the treatment of choice for idiopathic stage 2 to 3 FTMH. (Clinical Trials.gov number, NCT00286507.) (Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 201152: 1586-1592) DOI:10.1167/iovs.10-6287
Citation
Lois , N , Burr , J M , Norrie , J , Vale , L , Cook , J , McDonald , A , Boachie , C , Ternent , L , McPherson , G & Full-Thickness Macular Hole 2011 , ' Internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling for idiopathic full-thickness macular hole : a pragmatic randomized controlled trial ' , Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science , vol. 52 , no. 3 , pp. 1586-1592 . https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.10-6287
Publication
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science
Status
Peer reviewed
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.10-6287
ISSN
0146-0404
Type
Journal article
Rights
Copyright © Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology. This is the author's version of this article.
Collections
  • University of St Andrews Research
URL
http://aura.abdn.ac.uk/handle/2164/2645
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/10023/2875

Items in the St Andrews Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Advanced Search

Browse

All of RepositoryCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateNamesTitlesSubjectsClassificationTypeFunderThis CollectionBy Issue DateNamesTitlesSubjectsClassificationTypeFunder

My Account

Login

Open Access

To find out how you can benefit from open access to research, see our library web pages and Open Access blog. For open access help contact: openaccess@st-andrews.ac.uk.

Accessibility

Read our Accessibility statement.

How to submit research papers

The full text of research papers can be submitted to the repository via Pure, the University's research information system. For help see our guide: How to deposit in Pure.

Electronic thesis deposit

Help with deposit.

Repository help

For repository help contact: Digital-Repository@st-andrews.ac.uk.

Give Feedback

Cookie policy

This site may use cookies. Please see Terms and Conditions.

Usage statistics

COUNTER-compliant statistics on downloads from the repository are available from the IRUS-UK Service. Contact us for information.

© University of St Andrews Library

University of St Andrews is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013532.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter