An interventional study of vitrectomy surgery in Trauma and Macular Hole, sponsored by Peking University Third Hospital. Completed at 8 sites in China. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2014-10-07.
Sponsored by Peking University Third Hospital · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
The purpose of this study is to compare the anatomical and visual recovery of eyes with traumatic macular hole (TMH) following either early vitrectomy or 6-month observation.
Patients who received vitrectomy immediately after the injury were compared with patients who were observed for six months for spontaneously closure.The closure rate, foveal microstructure, and final visual acuity were analyzed.
156 studies on the registry are indexed under Retinal Perforations; 21 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 44 is close to the median of 44 across 104 interventional studies indexed under Retinal Perforations.
Browse Retinal Perforations studies →Peking University Third Hospital is the lead sponsor of 735 studies on the registry; 262 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
patients in this arm received 6-months observation alone after injury
patients in this arm received vitrectomy surgery as soon as possible after injury
Procedure: vitrectomy surgery
"pars plana vitrectomy +internal limiting membrane peeling" done immediately after the identification of the macular hole
macular hole closure rate
Time frame: 6 month after injury
central foveal thickness
Time frame: 6 month after hole closure
length of inner-segment outer-segment junction defect
Time frame: 6 month after hole closure
final visual acuity
Time frame: 6 month after hole closure
This study is completed, as verified in Jan 2012. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions 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.
Peking University Third Hospital