Inverted Internal Limiting Membrane Flap Technique versus Internal Limiting Membrane Peeling for Vitrectomy in Highly Myopic Eyes with Macular Hole-Induced Retinal Detachment: An Updated Meta-Analysis

Table 1

The baseline patient characteristics of the included studies.

Study	Country	Study type	Number of participants (eyes)	Mean age (years)	Gender (female/male)	Axial length (mm)	Outcome measures	Follow-up
Baba et al. [19]	Japan	Retrospective observational study	ILM flap: 10	74 (55–89)	5/5	28.95(27.03–31.00)	MH closure, retinal reattachment, BCVA	9.4 (6.0–27.5)
			ILM Peeling:11	68 (55–88)	8/3	30.30(27.80–32.28)		19.4 (6.0–48.4)
Sasaki et al. [20]	Japan	Retrospective study	ILM flap: 6	75.0 ± 6.4	5/1	30.47 ± 2.57	MH closure, retinal reattachment, BCVA	6
			ILM peeling: 9	66.0 ± 12.5	7/2	30.10 ± 1.95		6
Chen and Yang [26]	Taiwan	Retrospective interventional study	ILM flap: 20	62.06 ± 8.90	4/16	28.40 ± 1.94	MH closure, BCVA	8.92 ± 3.23
			ILM peeling: 20	60.53 ± 8.78	6/14	29.35 ± 1.88		14.13 ± 6.66
Hu et al. [27]	China	Retrospective study	ILM flap: 19	58.8 ± 13.8	16/3	29.4 ± 1.9	MH closure, BCVA	17.6 ± 11.3
			ILM peeling: 21	59.9 ± 8.5	15/6	30.0 ± 2.4		23.4 ± 16.1
Matsumura et al. [28]	Japan	Retrospective interventional study	ILM flap: 10	67.7 ± 9.7	8/2	28.4 ± 2.2	MH closure, retinal reattachment, BCVA	12
			ILM peeling: 12	75.3 ± 8.7	11/1	30.4 ± 1.6		12
Takahashi et al. [29]	Japan	Retrospective study	ILM flap: 16	68.4 ± 7.8	14/2	29.1 ± 1.9	MH closure, retinal reattachment, BCVA	12
			ILM peeling: 16	69.1 ± 8.5	15/1	29.6 ± 1.1		12
Wakabayashi et al. [30]	Japan	Retrospective study	ILM flap: 13	67.8 ± 9.9	11/2	29.4 ± 0.9	MH closure, retinal reattachment, BCVA	12
			ILM peeling: 36	69.2 ± 9.1	34/2	29.6 ± 1.7		12