Table 1.
Author | Study location | Study design | Eyes, n |
Mean age, years |
Gender (male/female) |
Minimum diameter |
Hole closure rate, % |
Follow-up, months | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ILM flap | ILM peeling | ILM flap | ILM peeling | ILM flap | ILM peeling | ILM flap | ILM peeling | ILM flap | ILM peeling | ||||
Kannan et al. [14] | India | RCT | 30 | 30 | 59.37 | 61.17 | 11/19 | 17/13 | 803.33 | 759.97 | 90 | 76.7 | 6 |
Iovino et al. [16] | Italy | RCT | 20 | 20 | 71 | 69 | 9/11 | 7/13 | 666.95 | 664.6 | 100 | 100 | 6 |
Manasa et al. [11] | India | RCT | 43 | 48 | 63.41 | 60.95 | 20/23 | 22/26 | 673 | 657.5 | 95.3 | 87.5 | 3 |
Velez-Montoya et al. [15] | Mexico | RCT | 12 | 12 | 64.2 | 61.8 | nr | nr | 608.89 | 522.22 | 91.67 | 91.67 | 3 |
Michalewska et al. [10] | Poland | RCT | 50 | 51 | 66 | 65 | 13/33 | 8/32 | 759 | 698 | 98 | 88 | 12 |
RCT, randomized controlled trial; ILM, internal limiting membrane; nr, not reported.