ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT00302328Updated Apr 16, 2014Results posted

Trial of Prognostic Factors and Surgical Methods for the Treatment of Idiopathic Macular Holes

An interventional study of macular hole operation in Idiopathic Macular Hole, sponsored by Glostrup University Hospital, Copenhagen. Completed at 1 site in Denmark. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2014-04-16.

Sponsored by Glostrup University Hospital, Copenhagen · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
78
Allocation
Randomized
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The project is a randomized clinical trial with a follow up time of 12 months comparing the effects of surgical treatment of idiopathic macular holes. Patients are randomized to vitrectomy alone, vitrectomy plus indocyanine green (ICG) assisted inner limiting membrane ( ILM) peeling or vitrectomy plus trypan blue (tb) assisted ILM peeling. At baseline patients are characterized using early treatment diabetic retinopathy study (ETDRS) visual charts, tests of aniseikonia, optical coherence tomography 3 (OCT3), visual field and fundus photography. Per- and postoperative complications are registered.

Data analyses will help clarify the effect of ILM peeling on hole closure and visual acuity. Comparing results after ICG- and tb assisted ILM peeling will help clarify the topic of a toxic effect on retinal cells after staining and peeling of the ILM. Changes in intraretinal morphology before and after dye-assisted ILM peeling will be studied using OCT3 imaging and the patients' subjective opinion on the surgical results will be analyzed using quality of life questionnaires and metamorphopsia tests.

02

Conditions studied

  • Idiopathic Macular Hole
03

In context

Lead sponsor

Glostrup University Hospital, Copenhagen is the lead sponsor of 106 studies on the registry; 5 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
Child (0–17), Adult (18–64), Older adult (65+)
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Idiopathic macular hele stage 2 or 3.
  • Duration of Symptoms ≤ 12 months.
  • Visual acuity ≥ 34 ETDRS letters.
  • Intraocular pressure ≤ 23 mmHg.
  • Informed consent.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Previous macular hole in project eye
  • Macular pucker worse than a cellophane macular reflex.
  • Previous surgery or disease in the eye affecting retinal function.
  • Systemic disease affection vision including diabetes mellitus with level of retinopathy ≥ 14a.
  • Amblyopia i project eye.
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Triple (Participant, Investigator, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
78 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • No intervention
    macular hole operation no peeling
  • Active comparator
    Macular hole operation ICG peeling

    Procedure: macular hole operation

  • Experimental
    Macular hole operation TB peeling

    Procedure: macular hole operation

Interventions

  • Proceduremacular hole operation

    macular hole surgery with either no peeling, indocyanine green (ICG) assisted peeling or trypan blue (tb) peeling

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Visual Acuity (ETDRS Letters)

    Visual acuity measured as the number of ETDRS letters at last follow-up

    Time frame: Visual acuity at 12 months

Secondary outcomes

  1. Anatomic Success

    closure of the macular hole evaluated on optical coherence tomography 3 (OCT3)

    Time frame: macular hole closure at 12 months

  2. Visual Field Defects

    visual field defects measured on humphrey perimetry

    Time frame: 6 months

07

Results

Posted Apr 16, 2014
Limitations and caveats
non-closure of macular hole after surgical procedure in 18 patients led to re-operation. Data included in main published papers.

Participant flow

3 years

Participant flow — Overall Study
Milestoneno PeelingICG Peelingtb Peeling
Started253518
Completed253418
Not completed010
Withdrew: Physician decision010

Outcome measures

PrimaryVisual Acuity (ETDRS Letters)

Visual acuity measured as the number of ETDRS letters at last follow-up

Time frame:
Visual acuity at 12 months
Reported as:
Mean · Visual acuity in letters
Visual Acuity (ETDRS Letters)
Visual acuity in lettersno PeelingICG Peelingtb Peeling
Visual Acuity (ETDRS Letters)74.9 ± 8.272.4 ± 6.572.2 ± 9.1
SecondaryAnatomic Success

closure of the macular hole evaluated on optical coherence tomography 3 (OCT3)

Time frame:
macular hole closure at 12 months
Reported as:
Number · participants
Anatomic Success
participantsno PeelingICG Peelingtb Peeling
Anatomic Success11 ± 313216
SecondaryVisual Field Defects

visual field defects measured on humphrey perimetry

Time frame:
6 months
Reported as:
Number · participants
Visual Field Defects
participantsno PeelingICG Peelingtb Peeling
Visual Field Defects0 (0 to .1)11

Adverse events

Collected over 12 months. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
no Peeling—14/25 (56%)0/25 (0%)
ICG Peeling—3/35 (8.6%)0/35 (0%)
tb Peeling—2/18 (11.1%)0/18 (0%)
Most frequent serious events
Most frequent serious events
Eventno PeelingICG Peelingtb Peeling
macular hole did not closeEye disorders14/252/352/18
cancerNeoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)0/251/350/18

Baseline characteristics

Age, Categorical
Age, Categorical(Participants)no PeelingICG Peelingtb PeelingTotal
<=18 years0000
Between 18 and 65 years15251050
>=65 years1010828
Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)no PeelingICG Peelingtb PeelingTotal
Mean67.6 ± 566.9 ± 566.6 ± 566.6 ± 5
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)no PeelingICG Peelingtb PeelingTotal
Female2027956
Male58922
Region of Enrollment
Region of Enrollment(participants)no PeelingICG Peelingtb PeelingTotal
Denmark25351878
08

Study locations

1 site
  • Department of Ophthalmology, Glostrup Hospital
    Copenhagen, DK-2600, Denmark
09

References and documents

Publications

  • Christensen UC. Value of internal limiting membrane peeling in surgery for idiopathic macular hole and the correlation between function and retinal morphology. Acta Ophthalmol. 2009 Dec;87 Thesis 2:1-23. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2009.01777.x. PubMed 19912135 ↗
  • Christensen UC, Kroyer K, Sander B, Jorgensen TM, Larsen M, la Cour M. Macular morphology and visual acuity after macular hole surgery with or without internal limiting membrane peeling. Br J Ophthalmol. 2010 Jan;94(1):41-7. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2009.159582. Epub 2009 Aug 18. PubMed 19692379 ↗
  • Kroyer K, Christensen U, la Cour M, Larsen M. Metamorphopsia assessment before and after vitrectomy for macular hole. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009 Dec;50(12):5511-5. doi: 10.1167/iovs.09-3530. Epub 2009 Jul 2. PubMed 19578018 ↗
  • Christensen UC, Kroyer K, Sander B, Larsen M, Henning V, Villumsen J, la Cour M. Value of internal limiting membrane peeling in surgery for idiopathic macular hole stage 2 and 3: a randomised clinical trial. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009 Aug;93(8):1005-15. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2008.151266. Epub 2008 Nov 21. PubMed 19028741 ↗
  • Kroyer K, Christensen U, Larsen M, la Cour M. Quantification of metamorphopsia in patients with macular hole. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008 Sep;49(9):3741-6. doi: 10.1167/iovs.07-1452. Epub 2008 Apr 30. PubMed 18450594 ↗
10

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
Not marked actual or estimatedDates not marked actual or estimated

The record gives a start of Aug 2005, a primary completion of Jan 2008 and a completion of Jan 2009. It does not say whether these dates are actual or estimated.

Results were first posted in Apr 2014, 6 years 3 months after primary completion.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Mar 13, 2006
First posted
Mar 14, 2006
Start
Aug 2005
Primary completionActual
Jan 2008
CompletionActual
Jan 2009
Results first posted
Apr 16, 2014
Last update
Apr 16, 2014
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Apr 16, 2014, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT00302328
Collaborators
Danish Eye Health Society, The Danish Medical Research Council
Responsible party
Ulrik Christensen (MD, Glostrup University Hospital, Copenhagen) — Principal investigator
First posted
Mar 14, 2006
Start date
Aug 2005
Primary completion
Jan 2008
Completion
Jan 2009
Results posted
Apr 16, 2014
Last update
Apr 16, 2014

Study contacts

Morten la Cour, MD,DMSc,EBOD
study director · Glostrup Hospital, Department of Ophthalmology
Michael Larsen, MD, DMSc
study director · Glostrup Hospital, Department of Ophthalmology

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Mar 2014. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion