An interventional study of 25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy with inverted flap technique and SF6 tamponade and 25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy with complete internal limiting membrane peeling with amniotic membrane hydrogel filling and SF6 tamponade in Macular Holes, sponsored by Walailak University. Recruiting at 1 site in Thailand. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-09-09.
Sponsored by Walailak University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
The human amniotic membrane (hAM) patch, introduced by Rizzo et al. in 2018, showed a 100% anatomical success rate for large or failed macular holes over a 6-month follow-up. Despite its regenerative properties like promoting angiogenesis and having low immunogenicity, its clinical use is limited by challenges such as trimming to fit small holes and complications during insertion. To overcome these issues, decellularized amniotic membrane (dAM) has been processed into a hydrogel form, enhancing its applicability and allowing it to be used as an injectable hydrogel for minimally invasive therapies. While dAM hydrogels have been used in various medical fields, their application in intraocular surgery is new. This study proposes using dAM hydrogel for large macular hole closure, comparing its effectiveness to the inverted ILM flap technique in a randomized controlled trial.
A macular hole (MH) is a neuroepithelial defect in the macular area of the retina. The estimation of macular hole incidence about 33 of every 10,000 person in individuals older than 55 years old1. The female-to-male ratio is 2 to 3:1. Idiopathic macular hole (IMH) is MHs occurring independently of primary ocular diseases such as trauma and vitreoretinopathy2 and represents the predominant subtype of MH, constituting approximately 83%1. There is a 5% to 15% risk of developing macular hole in the other eye if a macular hole develops in one eye.1 In 1988, Gass proposed a classification system for idiopathic macular holes, as well as a new hypothesis for its pathogenesis, which emphasizes the role of the vitreo-macular tangential traction in the formation of macular holes3. Macular hole closure can occurred spontaneously in approximately 5-10% cases in early stages. Pars plana vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling and gas tamponade has been the standard of care of small size macular hole treatment with success rate more than 90%4. However, in large macular hole more than 400 um, the success rate is lower. Previous study showed closure rate of large macular hole > 400 μm is 56% with poor visual outcome.4,5 Several new techniques have been described to improve anatomical and functional outcomes in cases of large macular holes by inserting alternative tissues into the macular hole, such as the ILM flap, human amniotic membrane patch6, or retinal tissue implantation, to promote anatomical closure and improve visual acuity. The utilization of ILM flap coverage has emerged as an effective surgical approach for treating large, full-thickness idiopathic MH and myopic MH. This technique was initially introduced in 1999, showing promising results in enhancing macular hole closure rates through ILM peeling. Several subsequent studies 7-9 have further substantiated the efficacy of ILM flap coverage, making it the standard surgical treatment for large macular hole cases. However, this technique is often hindered by limitations related to the technical complexity of surgery and the risk of retinal trauma.
The human amniotic membrane (hAM) patch, proposed by Rizzo et al. in 20186, serves as another alternative technique for large or failed macular hole cases. The anatomical success rate was 100% during the 6 months follow-up. The exceptional biological properties of hAM, including its promote angiogenesis10, low immunogenicity11, and anti-inflammatory11,12, anti-fibrotic13, and antibacterial characteristics14, make it highly suitable for regenerative medicine and intraocular implantation. However, the clinical application of thin hAM sheets is limited by several challenges, such as the difficulty of trimming it to fit very small hole sizes (\< 0.2 cm), tissue loss after insertion into the PPV port, and complications during the insertion of the hAM patch into the hole. To address these limitations, processing decellularized amniotic membrane (dAM) tissue into a hydrogel form has enhanced its processability and applicability15. This transformation allows it to be used as an injectable hydrogel for minimally invasive therapies and facilitates its manipulation into the macular hole.
dAM hydrogels have been applied in various fields, including skin repair, cardiac treatment, cartilage regeneration, endometrial regeneration, vascular grafts, dental pulp regeneration, and as cell culture/carrier platforms. However, their use in intraocular surgery has not yet been established. Additionally, the benefits of dAM hydrogel over hAM tissue include lower immunogenicity due to the decellularization process since the resident cells may cause intense host immunologic reactions after transplantation and transplant rejection and the homogeneous distribution of biochemical substances within the hydrogel structure.15 In this study, we will be the first to propose a new technique and invention for closing large macular holes using human amniotic membrane hydrogel filling in the hole after standard ILM peeling. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare the anatomical and visual outcomes of the inverted ILM flap technique (IFT) with the dAM hydrogel technique in idiopathic large macular holes with a minimum diameter (MD) greater than 400 μm.
In vitro biological characterization of dAM hydrogel, including RPE-1 retinal pigment epithelial cell viability (CCK-8 assay at 24 and 48 hours) and scaffold-guided cell migration (transwell invasion assay), is performed at the Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medical Science, Naresuan University, as part of batch quality control prior to clinical use. Batch release requires RPE-1 cell surface viability at 48 hours to be not significantly different from Matrigel reference scaffold (one-way ANOVA, p = ns), consistent with active cell migration into the three-dimensional scaffold rather than cytotoxicity. This study is conducted under IRB approval No. WUEC-24-331-01 (Amendment No. 1, effective 1 May 2025).
139 studies on the registry are indexed under Retinal Perforations; 22 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 26 is below the median of 50 across 94 interventional studies indexed under Retinal Perforations.
Browse Retinal Perforations studies →Walailak University is the lead sponsor of 3 studies on the registry; 1 is open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
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.
Age ≥18 years Idiopathic full-thickness macular hole with minimum diameter >400 µm confirmed on SD-OCT Willing and able to provide written and comply with 6-month follow-up schedule
Exclusion Criteria:
Full-thickness macular hole with minimum diameter >1,500 µm Traumatic macular holes Myopic macular holes (axial length >26.5 mm or refractive error less than -8.0 diopters) Co-existing ocular pathologies independently affecting visual acuity (glaucoma with visual field loss, advanced age-related macular degeneration, diabetic macular edema, or epiretinal membrane requiring surgery) Active intraocular inflammation or infection Previous vitreoretinal surgery Medical unfitness for local anesthesia surgery as determined by the anesthesiologist Inability to maintain prone positioning postoperatively
Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Informed consent
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Patients who will undergo 25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy with inverted flap technique and SF6 tamponade.
Procedure: 25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy with inverted flap technique and SF6 tamponade
Patients who will undergo 25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy with complete internal limiting membrane peeling, amniotic membrane hydrogel filling and SF6 tamponade.
Procedure: 25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy with complete internal limiting membrane peeling with amniotic membrane hydrogel filling and SF6 tamponade
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
Standard 3 port 25-gauge pars plana vitrectomy with complete internal limiting membrane peeling around the macular hole after brilliant blue dye staining then filling the hole with amniotic membrane hydrogel and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) tamponade
Closure rate
Type 1 anatomical closure rate at 6 months postoperatively, defined per the Gigante et al. classification as complete flattening of the macular hole with neurosensory retina fully covering the retinal pigment epithelium across the fovea on SD-OCT, assessed by a masked investigator on anonymized images.
Time frame: 6 months
Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA)
Change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline to 6 months postoperatively, measured in logMAR by a masked assessor, comparing dAM hydrogel instillation versus inverted ILM flap technique.
Time frame: 6 months
EZ and ELM integrity
Ellipsoid zone (EZ) integrity grade (Continuous/Discontinuous/Absent) and external limiting membrane (ELM) continuity (Continuous/Discontinuous) at 6 months postoperatively on SD-OCT, graded by a masked investigator on anonymized images.
Time frame: 6 months
Intraocular pressure (IOP)
Change in intraocular pressure (IOP) from baseline to 6 months postoperatively, measured by Goldmann applanation tonometry.
Time frame: 6 months
Intraoperative and postoperative complications
Incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications including intraocular inflammation (graded by SUN criteria), endophthalmitis, retinal detachment, elevated IOP requiring treatment, and cataract progression requiring surgery.
Time frame: 6 months
Plan to share: No
Started Oct 2024 (actual). Primary completion is estimated for Aug 2026, 22 months after the start.
Of 45 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Retinal Perforations, half reached primary completion within 28 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 12 and three quarters within 31. This study's planned 22 months is below that.
Counting every sponsor, half of 45 studies reached it within 28 months; a quarter within 12 and three quarters within 31.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.
Contact study teamGet 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.
Walailak University