AzTrials
AzTrials

Macular HolesNCT04698226

ILM Peeling Versus Inverted Flap Technique for Treatment of Macular Hole: Near Visual Acuity Outcomes

A study testing 25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy with complete internal limiting membrane peeling and SF6 tamponade and 25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy with inverted flap technique and SF6 tamponade in people with Macular Holes, run by Faculty Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady at 1 site in Czechia.

Unknown status

Status not confirmed. The sponsor has not verified this record for over two years, so it may be out of date.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

A prospective randomised study comparing the near visual acuity outcomes using Salzburg Reading Desk in pseudophakic patients with idiopathic full-thickness macular hole treated with pars plana vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling versus inverted flap technique. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Macular Holes
What is being tested?
25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy with complete internal limiting membrane peeling and SF6 tamponade and 25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy with inverted flap technique and SF6 tamponade
Type of treatment
Surgery or procedure
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
60 participants
Where
1 siteCzechia
Study dates
5 Jan 2021to Jun 2023
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 years and older
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Adult patients over 18 years of age
  • With idiopathic full thickness macular hole verified on OCT (Gass stage 2-4)
  • Minimal macular hole size under 1000 um
  • Pseudophakic

Who cannot join

  • Presence of other ocular pathology influencing visual acuity (e.g. age-related macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy etc.)
  • Unwilling to sign the informed consent form
  • Unable to come to the study visits
  • Health status not allowing participation in the study

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Martin Pencak, M.D. contact

+420 267 16 3637

pencak@volny.cz

Miroslav Veith, M.D. contact

+420 267 16 3637

mveith@email.cz

Czechia1 site, 1 recruiting
  • Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty hospital Kralovske Vinohrady

    Prague, 100 34

    Martin Pencak, M.D., +420 267 16 3637, pencak@volny.cz

    Recruiting

Other trials in Czechia

About this study

Official title: Internal Limiting Membrane Peeling Versus Inverted Flap Technique for Treatment of Idiopathic Full-thickness Macular Hole: a Comparative Study of Near Visual Acuity Outcomes Using Salzburg Reading Desk.

A prospective randomised study comparing the near visual acuity outcomes using Salzburg Reading Desk in pseudophakic patients with idiopathic full-thickness macular hole treated with pars plana vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling versus inverted flap technique. The aim of the study is confirm or disprove the hypothesis, that the near visual acuity results of pars plana vitrectomy with inverted flap technique for idiopathic macular hole are not inferior to pars plana vitrectomy with complete internal limiting membrane peeling technique. Patients will be followed for 6 months after the operation and near best corrected visual acuity testing on Salzburg reading desk, distance best corrected visual acuity on ETDRS tables and microperimetry will be performed and compared between both groups. Also the macular hole closure rate and complication rate will be compared between both groups.

Read the detailed description

Idiopathic full-thickness macular hole (MH) is an anatomic defect of the macula caused by the traction of the vitreous. Interruption of all neural retinal layers from the internal limiting membrane (ILM) to the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) is present. Although other therapeutic approaches like pneumatic or enzymatic vitreolysis may lead to MH closure, pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) remains a gold standard for the treatment of full-thickness MH. Combination of PPV with full ILM peeling showed excellent results in small to medium MH, however the success rates dropped significantly with the increasing size of MH. PPV with inverted flap technique was introduced to address this issue and showed great results in MH of all diameters. In inverted flap technique, ILM is peeled around the MH and small piece of it is placed over the MH. It is speculated, that it serves as a scaffolding for gliosis allowing it to close large MHs. Besides gliosis, the ILM flap seals the MH by secluding communication between the vitreous and subretinal space, creating a closed compartment enabling the RPE to pump out fluid effectively. However, it is not known whether the ILM left in the macular hole might not hinder the healing process and full closure of macular hole. The aim of this study is to perform a detailed assessment of the state of the macula and near best corrected visual acuity and to compare the results of complete ILM peeling and ILM flap technique.

This is a prospective randomised study comparing the near visual acuity outcomes using Salzburg Reading Desk in pseudophakic patients with idiopathic full-thickness MH treated with PPV with ILM peeling versus inverted flap technique. Participants are randomized in a 1:1 ration to undergo 25-gauge PPV with complete ILM peeling or with circular inverted flap technique with sulphur hexafluoride as a tamponade and recommendation to maintain reading position for 3 days.

At baseline visit (D1) one day prior to the operation, patients undergo distance best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) exam using ETDRS charts, intraocular pressure (IOP) measuring using the non-contact tonometry, anterior segment slit-lamp examination, fundus biomicroscopy, microperimetry and optical coherence tomography (OCT).

At month 3 (M3) and month 6 (M6) visits, patients undergo distance BCVA exam using ETDRS charts, near BCVA exam using the Salzburg reading desk (SRD Vision, NY, USA), IOP measuring using the non-contact tonometry, anterior segment slit-lamp examination, fundus biomicroscopy, microperimetry, and OCT. The closure of macular hole and post-operational complications are assessed.

Distance BCVA is performed using ETDRS charts and recorded in logMAR.

Microperimetry is performed using the MAIA Confocal Microperimeter (CenterVue S.p.A, Padova, Italy). Expert exam 4-2 of the study eye is performed two times and the average of macular integrity score, average threshold score and fixation stability P1 and P2 are recorded.

OCT is performed using the Spectralis OCT (Heidelberg Engineering GmbH, Heidelberg, Germany). Macula of the study eye is scanned in 512 horizontal scans in the angle of 20x20 degrees with the spacing of 11 um in High Speed mode with noise reduction set to ART=5. The minimum and basal macular hole diameter is recorded, and the staging of the macular hole is performed using both the Gass and International Vitreomacular Traction Study Classification System. Presence or absence of epiretinal membrane is recorded.

Near BCVA is performed using the Salzburg reading desk. The best near correction is determined first using the Jaeger Reading Eye Charts. Examination on Salzburg reading desk is performed afterwards in Czech with the reading distance set to 40 cm with contrast and luminance set to 100%. Progressively smaller text is presented to the patient until his reading speed falls under 80 words per minute (wpm) or until his word miss rate is higher than 1. At this point, patient is presented with 5 different sentences with the same text size. Test is ended if the patient cannot exceed the reading speed of 80 wpm or if his word miss rate is higher than 1 3 or more times for the same text size. The smallest text size where reading speed is over 80 wpm or word miss rate is 1 or lower is recorded in logMAR as near BCVA.

Conditions
Macular Holes
Being tested
25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy with complete internal limiting membrane peeling and SF6 tamponade, 25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy with inverted flap technique and SF6 tamponade
Keywords
Idiopathic macular hole, Pars plana vitrectomy, Inverted flap, Internal limiting membrane peel, Salzburg reading desk, Microperimetry
Medical subject headings
Retinal Perforations

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • 25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy with complete internal limiting membrane peeling and SF6 tamponadeProcedure or surgery

    Standard 3 port 25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy with complete internal limiting membrane peeling around the macular hole after brilliant blue dye staining and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) tamponade

  • 25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy with inverted flap technique and SF6 tamponadeProcedure or surgery

    Standard 3 port 25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy with inverted flap technique after brilliant blue dye staining and SF6 tamponade. "Flower petal" type of inverted flap will be performed - multiple small ILM flaps will be created around the macular hole and placed over the macular hole.

Study groups in NCT04698226
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
ILM peelActive comparatorPatients who will undergo 25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy with complete internal limiting membrane peeling and SF6 tamponade.
Receives: Procedure: 25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy with complete internal limiting membrane peeling and SF6 tamponade
Inverted flapExperimentalPatients who will undergo 25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy with inverted flap technique and SF6 tamponade.
Receives: Procedure: 25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy with inverted flap technique and SF6 tamponade

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Near best corrected visual acuity on Salzburg reading desk

    Near best corrected visual acuity defined as the smallest text size where reading speed is over 80 wpm or word miss rate is 1 or lower as per Salzburg reading desk exam.

    Measured: Month 6

  2. Microperimetry - macular integrity

    Change from baseline macular integrity score from MAIA Confocal Microperimeter Expert exam 4-2 of the study eye at month 6.

    Measured: Baseline and month 6

  3. Microperimetry - avarage threshold

    Change from baseline avarage threshold score from MAIA Confocal Microperimeter Expert exam 4-2 of the study eye.exam 4-2 of the study eye at month 6.

    Measured: Baseline and month 6

  4. Microperimetry - fixation stability

    Change from baseline fixation stability P1 and P2 from MAIA Confocal Microperimeter Expert exam 4-2 of the study eye at month 6.

    Measured: Baseline and month 6

  5. Macular hole closure rate

    Macular hole closure rate defined as a flattened and reattached hole rim along the whole circumference of macular hole on the OCT examination of the macular region of the study eye.

    Measured: Month 6

Secondary outcomes (3)
  1. Distance best corrected visual acuity

    Change from baseline distance best corrected visual acuity examined on ETDRS tables and recorded in logMAR at month 6.

    Measured: Baseline and month 6

  2. Occurrence of perioperative complications

    Occurrence of perioperative complications such as retinal breaks, etc. will be recorded.

    Measured: Month 3

  3. Occurrence of postoperative complications

    Occurrence of postoperative complications such as intraocular haemorrhage, retinal detachment etc. will be recorded.

    Measured: Month 6

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted6 Jan 2021
  2. Study start5 Jan 2021
  3. Primary completionJun 2023 (estimated)
  4. Study completionJun 2023 (estimated)

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
Single blind
Who is masked
Participant
Enrolment
60 participants (estimated)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT04698226
Sponsor's protocol ID
MH SRD V1.0
Status last verified
Aug 2022
First submitted
2 Jan 2021
Last updated
9 Aug 2022
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
No

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing 25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy with complete internal limiting membrane peeling and SF6 tamponade and 25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy with inverted flap technique and SF6 tamponade in people with Macular Holes, run by Faculty Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady at 1 site in Czechia.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 9 Aug 2022. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in Czechia. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

Results are not available in the source record.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

Contact Martin Pencak, M.D. (+420 267 16 3637, pencak@volny.cz), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Near best corrected visual acuity on Salzburg reading desk (time frame: Month 6). The study lists 5 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 9 Aug 2022.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in