Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 5, 2026
Retinal Pigment Epithelium Transplantation in a Non-human Primate Model for Degenerative Retinal Diseases
Published on: June 14, 2021
Vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling for idiopathic full-thickness macular hole
Kurt Spiteri Cornish1, Noemi Lois2, Neil W Scott3
1Ophthalmology Department, Grampian University Hospitals NHS Trust, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Objective:
To determine whether internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling improves anatomic and functional outcomes of full-thickness macular hole (FTMH) surgery when compared with the no-peeling technique.
Design:
Systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis undertaken under the auspices of the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included.
Participants And Controls:
Patients with idiopathic stage 2, 3, and 4 FTMH undergoing vitrectomy with or without ILM peeling.
Intervention:
Macular hole surgery, including vitrectomy and gas endotamponade with or without ILM peeling.
Main Outcome Measures:
Primary outcome was best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCdVA) at 6 months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were BCdVA at 3 and 12 months; best-corrected near visual acuity (BCnVA) at 3, 6, and 12 months; primary (after a single surgery) and final (after >1 surgery) macular hole closure; need for additional surgical interventions; intraoperative and postoperative complications; patient-reported outcomes (PROs) (EuroQol-5D and Vision Function Questionnaire-25 scores at 6 months); and cost-effectiveness.
Results:
Four RCTs were identified and included in the review. All RCTs were included in the meta-analysis; IPD were obtained from 3 of the 4 RCTs. No evidence of a difference in BCdVA at 6 months was detected (mean difference, -0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.12 to 0.03; P=0.27); however, there was evidence of a difference in BCdVA at 3 months favoring ILM peeling (mean difference, -0.09; 95% CI, -0.17 to-0.02; P=0.02). There was evidence of an effect favoring ILM peeling with regard to primary (odds ratio [OR], 9.27; 95% CI, 4.98-17.24; P<0.00001) and final macular hole closure (OR, 3.99; 95% CI, 1.63-9.75; P=0.02) and less requirement for additional surgery (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.05-0.23; P<0.00001), with no evidence of a difference between groups with regard to intraoperative or postoperative complications or PROs. The ILM peeling was found to be highly cost-effective.
Conclusions:
Available evidence supports ILM peeling as the treatment of choice for patients with idiopathic stage 2, 3, and 4 FTMH.
