Table 3 Inverted ILM flap insertion versus the ILM flap insertion with the autologous blood technique
From: Novel surgical approaches for treating myopic traction maculopathy: a meta-analysis
Study design | Study conducted by | No of eyes | Average age in years | Macular Hole (MH) mean diameter | Treatment | Superficial foveal avascular zone (FAZ) | Superficial parafoveal vessel density | Preoperative BCVA (LogMAR) | Postoperative BCVA (LogMAR) | Macular Hole (MH) closure rate | Follow Up months |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Retrospective | Hu et al. [25] | 25 | 62.2 ± 11.0 | 700 μm | ILM flap with Autologous blood technique | 0.29 ± 0.08 mm2 | 51.41 ± 2.79% | 1.31 ± 0.61 | 0.68 ± 0.40 | 96% | 3 months |
27 | 64.4 ± 9.3 | 700 μm | Inverted ILM insertion | 0.73 ± 0.15 mm2 | 43.77 ± 2.71% | 1.34 ± 0.39 | 1.29 ± 0.62 | 92.5% | 3 months |