Myopic macular hole

摘要

I write in reference to a recent article by Li et al. regarding double peel for myopic macular hole-related detachments.I firstly applaud the authors for their attention to this often difficult management problem.The authors conclude that double peel has a higher success rate when compared with historic controls managed without this deliberate double peel/stain technique. This however is not justified by the results that demonstrate no statistical significance between the two groups in any respect (anatomical nor visual - table 2 in the paper).The visual acuity results are not clear. Preoperative and postoperative visual acuity is quoted as 'Snellen' (presumably Snellen fraction); however, the difference between these, while numerically correct, is quoted as being logMAR units. Additionally the statistical significance of the visual acuity changes (with P-values as low as 0.004) seem unlikely given the low numbers in the study groups, and the small quoted changes. I doubt that the 0.01 unit difference at 12 months in the double peel group could have a significance of 0.088 (n = 9 at 12 months), and the 0.01 unit difference at 6 months in the control group (n = 9) has a P-value of 0.50.