ReviewTurkish journal of ophthalmology2026
Current Approaches in the Management of Complicated Macular Holes.
Review in Turkish journal of ophthalmology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Kelly and Wendel reported the first successful intervention for idiopathic full-thickness macular holes in 1991. Since then, pars plana vitrectomy and internal limiting membrane peeling have become the standard treatment approach, with >90% hole closure rates. However, the results were not satisfactory in cases of complicated macular holes, including large, recurrent, refractory, and myopic macular holes. To date, several surgical approaches, including the inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique, autologous retinal transplantation, the human amniotic membrane plug, and the autologous Tenon's capsule plug, have been described by various authors to improve the anatomical and functional outcomes of challenging cases. Although these techniques have significantly increased hole closure rates, each technique has its own strengths and weaknesses. Currently, there is no consensus among vitreoretinal surgeons on a single ideal technique for treating challenging macular holes. In this review, the inventors of each innovative surgical technique will discuss the indications, pros and cons, complications, and anticipated future applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.