You are viewing the site in preview mode

Skip to main content

Table 3 Postoperative functional outcomes of two groups

From: A three-step approach versus the inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique in large full thickness macular hole surgery: a comparative study

 

1 month

3 months

6 months

BCVA (LogMar) mean ± SD (range)

   

   Group A

0.99 ± 0.41 (0.30-2.00)a

0.86 ± 0.39 (0.30-2.00)a

0.69 ± 0.38 (0.22-2.00)a

   Group B

1.03 ± 0.37 (0.40-2.00)

0.93 ± 0.42 (0.22-2.00)

0.91 ± 0.39 (0.15-2.00)a

   Pb

0.579

0.563

0.015

Improvement in BCVA (LogMar) mean ± SD (range)

   

   Group A

-0.20 ± 0.49 (-1.70-1.18)

-0.33 ± 0.56 (-2.30-1.18)

-0.50 ± 0.59 (-2.48-1.18)

   Group B

-0.20 ± 0.51 (-1.30-0.70)

-0.29 ± 0.60 (-1.60-0.70)

-0.31 ± 0.59 (-1.48-0.40)

   Pb

0.252

0.381

0.045

ELM recovery rate (%) (n/N)

   

   Group A

11.11 (3/27)

25.93 (7/27)

55.56 (15/27)

   Group B

3.70 (1/27)

11.11 (3/27)

22.22 (6/27)

   Pc

0.610

0.501

0.026

EZ recovery rate (%) (n/N)

   

   Group A

3.70 (1/27)

7.41 (2/27)

37.04 (10/27)

   Group B

3.70 (1/27)

7.41 (2/27)

18.52 (5/27)

   Pc

1

1

0.224

  1. Group A releasing-closing-tapping approach group. Group B inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique group
  2. BCVA best corrected visual acuity, ELM external limiting membrane, EZ ellipsoid zone
  3. a Wilcoxon signed-rank test P < 0.05 versus baseline values for the same group
  4. b Two-tailed standard t test/Mann–Whitney U test
  5. c Chi-square test/Fisher’s exact test