⌘+K

Pulse Explore Clubs Researchers Journals

Home Clubs Explore

August 16, 2024RetinaOpen Access

The inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique is not recommended for the treatment of large macular holes smaller than 650 µm.

Junhong Chen Jiwei Tao Yun Zhang

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Share

Abstract

To compare the anatomical and functional outcomes of the inverted flap technique versus conventional internal limited membrane (ILM) peeling in large idiopathic full-thickness macular holes (FTMHs) smaller than 650 µm.

Discussion

No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.

Cite This Study

Chen et al. (2024) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68e5bf9fb6db643587556efc https://doi.org/10.1097/iae.0000000000004248

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Share

Keep reading

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

1Comparison of the use of internal limiting membrane flaps versus conventional ILM peeling on post-operative anatomical and visual outcomes in large macular holes2024 · 11 citations
2Inverted flap technique versus internal limiting membrane insertion for macular hole in eyes with extremely high myopia2024 · 6 citations
3MANAGEMENT OF LARGE FULL-THICKNESS MACULAR HOLES2024 · 3 citations
4Temporal inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique versus conventional internal limiting membrane peeling technique for large macular holes: a retrospective comparative studyCohort Study · 2026
5Comparison of Techniques: Inverted Flap and Conventional Internal Limiting Membrane Removal in Idiopathic Macular Hole Surgery2024 · 2 citations