CompletedNot Applicable

The (Flip and Fix) Internal Limiting Flap Technique Versus the Classic Temporal Flap for Macular Hole Repair

Egypt22 participantsStarted 2021-02-01

Plain-language summary

Purpose To describe a novel technique of MH repair and compare it to the perfluorocarbon liquid (PFCL) assisted temporal ILM flap technique. Methods Twenty-two eyes of 22 patients with MH were randomized on 1:1 basis into two groups. Group A cases were treated using the (Flip and Fix) technique in which the single-layer ILM flap was (flipped), flattened over the macula using PFCL and (fixed) in place using 2 drops of autologous non-heparinized blood over the superonasal and the inferonasal edges of the flap (away from the MH center). Group B patients had the classic temporal ILM flap technique without using the PFCL or autologous blood. All patients were followed up for a period of 6 months after the surgery. Results No significant difference was observed in initial and final visual acuities between Groups A and B. Intraoperative flap displacement and did not occur in Group A and occurred in 2 eyes in Group B (18.2%) one of them showed failed MH closure and required reoperation, These 2 cases had a final (W shape) MH closure and a worse final vision than the remaining cases which had either (U shape) or (V shape) final MH closure. Conclusions The study results show that the (Flip and Fix) technique is as effective as the PFCL-assisted temporal ILM flap technique and is associated with less ILM flap displacement risk for the repair of macular holes.

Who can participate

Age range

50 Years – 100 Years

Sex

ALL

See this in plain English?

AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.

Inclusion Criteria: patients with idiopathic macular holes who presented to (Removed in the blinded version of manuscript) in the period between February 2021 and February 2022. Exclusion Criteria: Patients with previous macular surgeries and those with any other significant macular pathologies e.g., diabetic macular oedema, myopic maculopathy, choroidal neovascular membrane, or macula-off retinal detachment - \-

Questions worth asking your doctor

Bring these to your next appointment. They're a starting point for a shared conversation — not a sign you qualify or a recommendation to enrol.

1Based on my diagnosis and history, is this trial worth exploring for me — or is there a standard treatment we should try first?
2What does this trial's phase tell us about how much is already known about its safety and benefit?
3What would taking part actually involve for me — visits, tests, time, and travel?
4What are the known and possible risks or side effects I should weigh, and how would they be monitored?
5If this trial isn't the right fit, what other options or trials would you suggest I look into?

Generated to help you prepare — always confirm anything about your own eligibility and care with the study team and your doctor.

Questions for the trial coordinator

The trial coordinator is the person who runs the study day to day. These cover the practical side — logistics, costs, and what taking part would actually mean for your life. The study team confirms whether you meet the criteria; these are questions to ask, not a sign you qualify.

1What does taking part actually involve week to week — how many visits, where, and how long does each one take?
2What costs are covered by the study, and what might I have to pay for myself, including travel, parking, or time off work?
3What happens during screening, and what happens if the study team confirms I don't meet the criteria after those tests?
4Who pays for the scans, blood work, and other tests the trial requires — the study, my insurance, or me?
5How will being in the trial affect my regular care, and will my own doctor stay informed and involved?
6Can I leave the trial at any point if I change my mind, and what would happen to my care if I do?

A starting point for the conversation — always confirm anything about your own eligibility, costs, and care with the study team and your doctor.

What they're measuring

Macular hoe closure by OCT scan

Timeframe: 1, 3, and six months postoperatively

LogMAR visual acuity

Timeframe: 1, 3, and six months postoperatively

Trial details

NCT IDNCT06441656

SponsorAlexandria University

Sponsor typeOTHER

Study typeINTERVENTIONAL

Primary completion2022-02-01

View on ClinicalTrials.gov More Hacular Hole Repair trials