0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Outcomes and Complications of Pars Plana Vitrectomy for Tractional Retinal Detachment in People With Diabetes : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

      research-article
      , MSc 1 , , MD 2 , , MD 2 , 3 , 4 , , MD, PhD 1 , 2 ,
      JAMA Ophthalmology
      American Medical Association

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the outcomes of pars plana vitrectomy for the treatment of diabetic tractional retinal detachment.

          Key Points

          Question

          What are the outcomes of pars plana vitrectomy for the treatment of diabetic tractional retinal detachment (dTRD), and what patient and surgical characteristics determine them?

          Findings

          In this systematic review and meta-analysis of 36 studies (3720 eyes), retinal reattachment is high, but final vision is low. Higher baseline vision was associated with higher postoperative vision.

          Meaning

          Study findings suggest that pars plana vitrectomy is associated with high anatomic reattachment but limited final vision postoperatively, which may be useful for the counseling of patients with dTRD; given that higher preoperative visual acuity is associated with higher postoperative vision, early intervention should be considered and discussed with patients.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Tractional retinal detachment (TRD) occurs in approximately 5% of people with proliferative diabetic retinopathy and poses a threat to vision. Pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) is the treatment of choice for TRD.

          Objective

          To determine anatomic and functional outcomes of PPV for the treatment of TRD in people with diabetes (dTRD).

          Data Sources

          MEDLINE and Embase were searched systematically from January 1, 2000, to February 20, 2022. In addition, a reference list of eligible studies were screened.

          Study Selection

          Eligible studies were those published in English, those reporting outcomes of PPV for dTRD, and those that included more than 25 eyes and with a minimum follow-up of 3 months.

          Data Extraction and Synthesis

          Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for data extraction/synthesis were followed, and the National Institute for Health quality assessment tool was used to assess risk of bias. Study eligibility was determined independently by 2 reviewers; data extraction was conducted by 1 reviewer and entries checked for accuracy by another. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Main outcomes included rate of failure of retinal reattachment following 1 surgery and final visual acuity (VA). The association of baseline patient characteristics and surgical maneuvers with postoperative surgical outcomes was investigated.

          Results

          Of the 406 studies identified, 38 (3839 eyes) were eligible and included for analysis. Patients had a median (IQR) age of 52.2 (49.6-55.7) years. In the studies reporting patient sex (31 of 38 studies), 1441 were female individuals (50.1%). The overall failure rate of retinal reattachment after 1 surgery was 5.9% (95% CI, 1.4%-8.3%), and the mean final VA was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.82-1.05) logMAR (approximate Snellen equivalent, 6/53; 95% CI, 6/39-6/71). People with higher preoperative VA achieved higher postoperative vision (0.66 logMAR worse final vision; 95% CI, 0.39-0.84 per 1.0 logMAR worse at baseline; P <.001). On multivariable analysis, no other patient characteristics or surgical variables had a statistically significant association with outcomes.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          Results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that PPV was an effective strategy to achieve retinal reattachment in people with dTRD. Given that higher preoperative VA was the only factor associated with higher postoperative vision, early intervention should be considered and discussed in detail with patients. Overall, final postoperative VA remains low, and patients should be counseled on the guarded prognosis of dTRD.

          Related collections

          Most cited references54

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

          Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Global Prevalence and Major Risk Factors of Diabetic Retinopathy

            OBJECTIVE To examine the global prevalence and major risk factors for diabetic retinopathy (DR) and vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy (VTDR) among people with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A pooled analysis using individual participant data from population-based studies around the world was performed. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify all population-based studies in general populations or individuals with diabetes who had ascertained DR from retinal photographs. Studies provided data for DR end points, including any DR, proliferative DR, diabetic macular edema, and VTDR, and also major systemic risk factors. Pooled prevalence estimates were directly age-standardized to the 2010 World Diabetes Population aged 20–79 years. RESULTS A total of 35 studies (1980–2008) provided data from 22,896 individuals with diabetes. The overall prevalence was 34.6% (95% CI 34.5–34.8) for any DR, 6.96% (6.87–7.04) for proliferative DR, 6.81% (6.74–6.89) for diabetic macular edema, and 10.2% (10.1–10.3) for VTDR. All DR prevalence end points increased with diabetes duration, hemoglobin A1c, and blood pressure levels and were higher in people with type 1 compared with type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS There are approximately 93 million people with DR, 17 million with proliferative DR, 21 million with diabetic macular edema, and 28 million with VTDR worldwide. Longer diabetes duration and poorer glycemic and blood pressure control are strongly associated with DR. These data highlight the substantial worldwide public health burden of DR and the importance of modifiable risk factors in its occurrence. This study is limited by data pooled from studies at different time points, with different methodologies and population characteristics.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Seriously misleading results using inverse of Freeman‐Tukey double arcsine transformation in meta‐analysis of single proportions

              Standard generic inverse variance methods for the combination of single proportions are based on transformed proportions using the logit, arcsine, and Freeman‐Tukey double arcsine transformations. Generalized linear mixed models are another more elaborate approach. Irrespective of the approach, meta‐analysis results are typically back‐transformed to the original scale in order to ease interpretation. Whereas the back‐transformation of meta‐analysis results is straightforward for most transformations, this is not the case for the Freeman‐Tukey double arcsine transformation, albeit possible. In this case study with five studies, we demonstrate how seriously misleading the back‐transformation of the Freeman‐Tukey double arcsine transformation can be. We conclude that this transformation should only be used with special caution for the meta‐analysis of single proportions due to potential problems with the back‐transformation. Generalized linear mixed models seem to be a promising alternative.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Ophthalmol
                JAMA Ophthalmol
                JAMA Ophthalmology
                American Medical Association
                2168-6165
                2168-6173
                12 January 2023
                February 2023
                12 January 2023
                : 141
                : 2
                : 186-195
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Wellcome-Wolfson Institute for Experimental Medicine, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom
                [2 ]Department of Ophthalmology, The Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom
                [3 ]Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom
                [4 ]Department of Neuroscience, Psychology, Drug Research and Child Health, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: November 12, 2022.
                Published Online: January 12, 2023. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2022.5817
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2023 McCullough P et al. JAMA Ophthalmology.
                Corresponding Author: Noemi Lois, MD, PhD, Wellcome-Wolfson Institute for Experimental Medicine, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, BT9 7BL ( n.lois@ 123456qub.ac.uk ).
                Author Contributions: Mr McCullough and Dr Lois had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: McCullough, Virgili, Lois.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
                Drafting of the manuscript: McCullough, Virgili, Lois.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: Virgili.
                Obtained funding: McCullough, Lois.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: McCullough, Mohite, Lois.
                Supervision: Lois.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.
                Funding/Support: This study was funded by grant 20013349 from Fighting Blindness Ireland. Further funding support was provided by Ms Elizabeth Sloan.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Meeting Presentations: This work was presented as an oral presentation at the Vail Vitrectomy meeting; March 15, 2022; Vail, Colorado; at the European Association For Diabetic Eye Complications conference; May 27, 2022; Belfast, United Kingdom; and as a virtual oral presentation at the Euretina meeting; September 1, 2022; Hamburg, Germany.
                Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 2.
                Article
                eoi220084
                10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2022.5817
                9857853
                36633878
                34e77856-c368-4c46-849c-c42c70c39c5f
                Copyright 2023 McCullough P et al. JAMA Ophthalmology.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 17 August 2022
                : 12 November 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: Fighting Blindness Ireland
                Funded by: Ms Elizabeth Sloan
                Categories
                Research
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online First
                Comments

                Comments

                Comment on this article