Reply

Affiliations

¹ Department of Surgical Sciences, Eye Clinic Section, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
² Department of Ophthalmology, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
³ Department of Experimental Biomedicine and Clinical Neuroscience, Ophthalmology Section, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
⁴ Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.

Luca Ventre et al. Retina. 2023.

. 2023 Apr 1;43(4):e27.

doi: 10.1097/IAE.0000000000003752.

¹ Department of Surgical Sciences, Eye Clinic Section, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
² Department of Ophthalmology, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
³ Department of Experimental Biomedicine and Clinical Neuroscience, Ophthalmology Section, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
⁴ Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.

No abstract available

References

1. Ventre L, Fallico M, Longo A, et al. Conventional internal limiting membrane peeling versus inverted flap for small-to-medium idiopathic macular hole: a randomized trial. Retina 2022;42:2251–2257.
1. Park JH, Lee SM, Park SW, et al. Comparative analysis of large macular hole surgery using an internal limiting membrane insertion versus inverted flap technique. Br J Ophthalmol 2019;103:245–250.
1. Iwasaki M, Miyamoto H, Imaizumi H. Effects of inverted internal limiting membrane technique and insertion technique on outer retinal restoration associated with glial proliferation in large macular holes. Graefe’s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2020;258:1841–1849.
1. Iwasaki M, Kinoshita T, Miyamoto H, Imaizumi H. Influence of inverted internal limiting membrane flap technique on the outer retinal layer structures after a large macular hole surgery. Retina 2019;39:1470–1477.
1. Chou H-D, Liu L, Wang C-T, et al. Single-layer inverted internal limiting membrane flap versus conventional peel for small- or medium-sized full-thickness macular holes. Am J Ophthalmol 2022;235:111–119.