Velez‐Montoya 2018.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: multicenter parallel‐group RCT Number randomized Total: 38 eyes of 38 participants PPV with ILM inverted flap: 12 PPV with ILM peeling: 12 PPV with ILM free‐flap technique (not included in review): 14 Exclusions after randomization: no Losses to follow‐up: NR Unit of analysis: participant (1 eye per participant) Number analyzed Total: 38 eyes of 38 participants PPV with ILM inverted flap: 12 PPV with ILM peeling: 12 PPV with ILM free‐flap technique (not included in review): 14 Handling of missing data: NR Sample size calculation: NR
Participants	Country: Mexico Mean age Total: NR PPV with ILM inverted flap: 59.37 (SD 6.7) years PPV with ILM peeling: 61.8 (SD 9.6) years Gender PPV with ILM inverted flap: NR PPV with ILM peeling: NR Mean preoperative BCVA in logMAR Total: NR PPV with ILM inverted flap: 0.925 (SD 0.5) PPV with ILM peeling: 0.953 (SD 0.2) Mean preoperative MH index in mm Total: NR PPV with ILM inverted flap: 0.47 (SD 1.01) PPV with ILM peeling: 0.42 (SD 0.06) Mean preoperative MH minimum diameter in mm Total: NR PPV with ILM inverted flap: 608.89 (SD 213) PPV with ILM peeling: 522.22 (SD 82.73) Mean preoperative MH base diameter in μm Total: NR PPV with ILM inverted flap: 993.67 (SD 484.21) PPV with ILM peeling: 952.5 (SD 84.9) Pseudophakia status: all eyes were phakic prior to the surgery in both groups Inclusion criteria Age ≥ 18 years Treatment naivety Clinical and tomographic diagnosis of stage IV large MH (minimum diameter > 400 μm) Either sex and any BCVA at presentation, time of evolution, and lens status Exclusion criteria History of amblyopia, diabetic retinopathy, panretinal photocoagulation, glaucoma, inflammatory eye diseases, or high myopia (≥− 6) Inability or refusal to sign informed consent form Types of MH in the study: idiopathic Equivalence of baseline characteristics: "There was no difference in age and time of evolution among groups (p= 0.58)"; " There were no differences in the MH closure rate between groups."
Interventions	Intervention 1: PPV with ILM inverted flap (type of inverted flap technique: manipulated over the hole) Intervention 2: PPV with ILM free‐flap technique (not included in review) Control: PPV with ILM peeling Cointerventions: "Cataract surgery in all cases (combined with vitrectomy)" Follow‐up Planned: 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months after surgery Actual: 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months after surgery Type of tamponade: none reported Number of surgeons performing surgeries: 4 surgeons in 3 centers.
Outcomes	Primary outcomes Closure rate Secondary outcomes Change in BCVA (measured using Snellen visual acuity, which was converted to logMAR for statistical analysis) OCT parameters Safety outcomes: no cases of retinal detachment in any group Time points of measurement: baseline, 1 month, 3 months
Notes	Publication type: published article Funding sources: "There were no funds allocated to the realization of this research." Disclosures of interest: no conflicts of interest Trial registry: none reported Study period: 1 January 2016 to 1 January 2017 Subgroup analyses: no Publication language: English

BCVA: best corrected visual acuity; ETDRS: early treatment diabetic retinopathy study; FTMH: full‐thickness macular hole; ILM: internal limiting membrane; logMAR: logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution; mfERG: multifocal electroretinogram; MH: macular hole; NR: not reported; OCT: optical coherence tomography; PPV: pars plana vitrectomy; RCT: randomized controlled trial; SD: standard deviation.